Ac/^^ 


The     Social     Justice     Books 


THE  CHURCH  AND  SOCIALISM 

AND  OTHER  ESSAYS 


THE  CHURCH  AND  SOCIALISM 

AND  OTHER  ESSAYS 


BY 

JOHN  A.  RYAN,  D.D.,  LL.D. 

Professor  of  Moral  Theology  at  the  Catholic  University  of  America; 

Author  of   "Distributive  Justice,  the  Right    and    Wrong   of 

Our  Present  Distribution  of  Wealth";  "A  Living  Wage"; 

"Alleged  Socialism  of  the  Church  Fathers."    Joint 

Author  with   Morris    Hillquit  of  "Socialism: 

Promise  or  Menace? ' ' 


WASHINGTON 

THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 
1919 


^il)il  ofagtat 


JOHN  F.  FENLON,  D.D. 


Censor  Depvtatus 


imprimatur 


*  JAMES  CARDINAL  GIBBONS 

Archbishop  of  Baltimore 


Copyright,  1919 
BY    • 
THE  UNIVERSITY  PRESS 


PREFACE 

This  volume  is  a  reprint  of  papers  that  have  appeared 
in  various  pubhcations  during  the  past  ten  years.   The 
opening    chapter    comprises    four    articles    originally 
published  in  The  New  York  Evening  Mail  in  February 
and  March,  1918;  the  second  and  fourth  have  been 
circulated    in    pamphlet    form,    respectively,    by    the 
Paulist  Press  and  the  Central  Bureau  of  the  Central 
Verein;  the  third  was  written  for  the  Catholic  Press 
Association  and  published  by  its  constituent  journals, 
and  each  of  the  others  appeared  in  one  of  the  follownig 
periodicals:  The  American   Catholic   Quarterly   Review, 
The  Catholic  World,  The  International  Journal  of  Ethics, 
The  Catholic  Charities  Review,  and  America.    Acknowl- 
edgment is  hereby  gratefully  made  of  the  permission 
granted  by  the  original  publishers  to  reprint  the  papers 
in  their  present  form. 

Although  the  productions  embodied  in  this  book 
were  written  at  different  times  and  on  different  sub- 
jects, it  is  hoped  that  they  will  be  found  not  entirely 
unrelated  to  one  another.  The  first  sk  deal  with 
important  phases  of  the  industrial  problem,  while  the 
last  four  treat  of  social  questions  which  have  important 
industrial  aspects.  Upon  the  advice  of  friends  the 
attempt  is  made  to  rescue  them  all  from  a  too  speedy 

oblivion. 

John  A.  Ryan. 

The  Catholic  University  of  America, 
Washington,  D.  C,  September,  1919 


451045 


CONTENTS 


PA6B 


I.  The  Church  and  Socialism 1 

II.  Principles  and  Proposals  of  Social  Re- 
form   35 

III.  A  Living  Wage 57 

IV.  The  Legal  Minimum  Wage 76 

V.  Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union.   .    .   100 

VI.  The  Church  and  the  Workingman  .    .    .   152 

VII.  The  Moral  Aspects  of  Speculation    .    .   163 

VIII.  False  AND  True  Conceptions  of  Welfare  180 

IX.  Birth  Control 217 

X.  Woman  Suffrage 236 

XI.  Social  Service  as  a  Profession    ....  246 


vu 


THE  CHURCH  AND  SOCIALISM 

I 

In  the  course  of  the  recent  war  all  the  belligerent 
governments  extended  enormously  their  control  and 
operation  of  industry.  Here  in  the  United  States 
we  beheld  the  public  authorities  fixing  the  price  of  coal 
and  food,  regulating  the  kinds  of  bread  that  we  shall 
eat,  operating  the  railroads,  building  and  sailing  ships, 
and  erecting  houses  for  workingmen.  Competent  stu- 
dents of  the  subject  fully  expected  that  many  of  the  new 
forms  of  state  intervention  would  be  continued  for  some 
considerable  time,  if  not  indefinitely,  after  the  arrival 
of  peace.  While  none  of  these  activities,  nor  all  of 
them  together,  constitute  socialism  in  the  true  sense, 
they  look  like  installments  of  or  an  approach  to  a  social- 
istic reorganization  of  industry.  Therefore,  the  time 
seems  fit  for  a  brief  restatement  of  the  attitude  of  the 
Catholic  Church  toward  socialism,  and  toward  certain 
industrial  proposals  which  are  improperly  called 
socialism. 

The  authoritative  and  precise  doctrine  of  the  Church 
on  these  subjects  is  found  in  certain  encyclicals  and  in- 
structions of  Popes  Leo  XIII  and  Pius  X.  In  his  en- 
cyclical, "On  the  Condition  of  Labor"  (May  15,1891), 
the  former  Pontiff  condemned  socialism  explicitly  as  in- 
jurious to  the  workingman,  destructive  of  the  indi- 
vidual's natural  rights,  and  perversive  of  the  sphere  of 
the  state.     The  proposals  of  the  socialists,  said  Pope 

1 


2  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Leo,  are  harmful  to  the  laborer,  inasmuch  as  they  would 
deprive  him  of  the  opportunity  to  invest  his  savings  in 
land  for  the  increase  of  his  resources  and  the  better- 
ment of  his  condition  in  life.  They  violate  natural  jus- 
tice, since  they  would  prevent  men  from  safeguarding 
the  future  of  themselves  and  their  families  through  the 
possession  of  durable  and  lucrative  property  in  the 
earth's  unfailing  storehouse.  They  tend  to  a  social  con- 
dition of  manifold  disorder  and  dissatisfaction;  for  the 
state  ownership  and  management  of  productive  prop- 
erty would  destroy  individual  incentive,  cause  "the 
sources  of  wealth  to  run  dry"  and  "level  down  all  to  a 
like  condition  of  misery  and  degradation." 

In  his  encyclical  on  "Christian  Social  Action"  (De- 
cember 18,  1903),  Pope  Pius  X  explicitly  reaffirmed  the 
main  propositions  of  his  distinguished  predecessor's  de- 
fense of  private  property  and  denunciation  of  socialism. 

Two  objections  have  been  raised  to  these  papal  pro- 
nouncements: First,  that  Pope  Leo  spoke  only  of  land, 
not  of  capital;  second,  that  the  socialists  no  longer  de- 
mand that  degree  of  state  ownership  of  land  that  the 
Pope  condemned. 

To  the  first  objection  the  sufficient  reply  is  that  all 
the  principles  and  arguments  set  forth  by  Pope  Leo  in 
defense  of  private  o^^mership  of  land  apply  with  sub- 
stantially equal  force  to  the  artificial  instruments  of 
production.  And  they  have  been  so  interpreted  and  ap- 
plied by  all  Catholic  authorities.  With  regard  to  the 
second  objection,  it  is  not  possible  to  speak  quite  so  def- 
initely, since  the  socialist  position  on  land  tenure  and 


The  Church  and  Socialism  3 

management  has  been  somewhat  modified  since  the  pub- 
lication of  Pope  Leo's  encyclical.  Many  European  so- 
cialists of  authority  concede  that  the  operation  of  small 
farms  would  better  be  left  to  individuals,  while  the  So- 
cialist party  of  the  United  States  has  gone  so  far  as  to 
declare  that  it  is  not  opposed  to  the  "occupation  and 
possession"  of  land  by  actual  cultivators.  In  the 
matter  of  urban  land  it  is  probable  that  the  majority  of 
present-day  socialists  would  permit  a  person  to  own  the 
site  upon  which  his  home  was  erected,  together  with  a 
small  garden.  It  seems  certain,  however,  that  they 
would  not  allow  anyone  to  draw  profit  from  land  which 
he  did  not  himself  cultivate  or  occupy. 

A  less  extensive  modification  seems  to  have  taken 
place  during  the  last  twenty-five  years  in  the  socialist 
proposals  concerning  capital.  The  authoritative  spokes- 
men of  the  party  today  would  permit  an  individual  to 
own  those  tools  and  machines  that  he  could  operate  by 
himself  or  with  the  assistance  of  one  or  two  other 
workers.  Apparently  they  would  not  prevent  the  own- 
ership and  management  of  some  of  the  larger  productive 
establishments  by  the  workers  themselves  organized  in 
cooperative  associations. 

Making  due  allowance  for  all  these  mitigations  of 
the  ancient  rigor  of  socialist  doctrine,  we  still  find  the 
scheme' liable  to  substantially  all  the  objections  brought 
against  it  by  Pope  Leo  XIII.  Socialism  still  contem- 
plates government  ownership  and  management  of  all 
land  used  for  commercial  and  industrial  purposes,  of  all 
mines,  of  all  but  the  smallest  farms,  and  of  substan- 


4  The  Church  and  Socialism 

tially  all  but  the  very  small  artificial  instruments  of 
production  and  distribution.  And  it  still  calls  for  the 
abolition  of  all  rent  and  interest,  and  of  all  incomes 
derived  merely  from  the  possession  of  property. 

Therefore  the  worker  would  not  be  permitted  to 
become  the  owner  of  anything  from  which  he  could 
derive  an  income  when  he  became  disabled.  He  could 
not  put  his  money  into  savings  banks,  nor  stocks,  nor 
bonds,  nor  any  other  kind  of  interest-bearing  wealth. 
Inasmuch  as  only  a  slight  proportion  of  the  workers 
could  be  self-employed  on  the  small  farms,  in  the  small 
hand  industries,  and  in  the  few  cooperative  establish- 
ments that  the  socialist  state  could  afford  to  permit, 
the  great  majority  would  be  deprived  of  that  sense  of 
independence,  manliness,  self-reliance,  self-respect  and 
economic  power  which  can  come  only  from  property. 

It  is  true  that  revenue-bearing  property  is  not  an 
indispensable  means  to  adequate  provision  for  the 
future  of  the  worker  and  his  family.  A  system  of  state 
insurance  might,  in  theory  at  least,  be  a  satisfactory 
substitute;  that  is,  so  far  as  concerns  the  things  that 
can  be  bought  with  money.  But  no  system  of  insur- 
ance, nor  any  scale  of  wages,  can  provide  a  man  \vith 
those  psychic  goods  which  are  an  integral  element  of 
normal  life,  and  which  are  only  second  in  importance  to 
food,  clothing  and  shelter.  Under  socialism  the  worker 
would  be  directly  and  constantly  dependent  upon  the 
state,  from  the  cradle  to  the  grave.  All  his  life  he 
would  be  merely  a  hired  man.  He  could  become  con- 
tented with  this  degenerate  status  only  after  he  had  lost 


The  Church  and  Socialism  5 

all  of  that  initiative,  that  self-respect  and  that  ambition 
which  are  essential  to  an  efficient  and  worthy  human 
existence,  y' 

To  retort  that  the  majority  of  the  workers  are  even 
now  deprived  of  any  solid  hope  of  becoming  property 
owners  is  to  miss  the  point  of  the  issue  entirely.  This 
sad  condition  is  no  necessary  part  of  the  present  sys- 
tem. Not  the  abolition  but  the  reformation  of  the  ex- 
isting social  and  industrial  order  is  the  proper  and  ade- 
quate remedy.  We  shall  discuss  this  specifically  in  a 
later  article. 

The  liberty  and  opportunity  of  the  worker  would  be 
further  diminished  by  his  inability  to  control  the  most 
important  details  of  his  own  life.  Under  socialism  the 
state  would  be  the  only  buyer  of  labor  and  the  only 
seller  of  goods.  No  matter  what  the  provocation,  the 
worker  would  have  no  choice  of  emplo^^ers.  He  must 
work  for  the  state  or  starve.  Likewise  he  must  buy  the 
necessaries  and  comforts  of  life  from  the  state,  and  be 
content  with  what  the  state  sees  fit  to  produce.  Instead 
of  the  wide  variety  of  choice  now  offered  by  competing 
dealers  he  would  find  only  the  few  standard  types  of 
goods  regarded  as  sufficient  by  the  state.  It  is  no  an- 
swer to  these  objections  to  prophesy  that  the  state 
would  prove  a  more  generous  and  humane  employer 
than  the  majority  of  existing  captains  of  industry,  and 
that  it  would  provide  all  the  variety  of  goods  that  is 
really  required  by  genuine  human  needs.  The  point  is 
that  in  these  vital  matters  the  worker  would  be  denied 
all  liberty  of  choice.     This  sort  of  freedom  is  a  valuable 


6  The  Church  and  Socialism 

possession  in  itself,  on  its  own  account.  The  mere  pro- 
vision of  abundant  material  goods  is  not  an  adequate 
substitute  or  compensation. 

Another  grave  injury  to  individual  liberty  would 
proceed  from  the  unlimited  power  of  oppression  pos- 
sessed by  bureaucrats  and  majorities.  The  ofEcials  of 
the  socialist  state  would  have  not  merely  political  power 
but  unlimited  economic  power.  While  they  could  in 
time  be  dislodged  by  a  majority  of  the  voters,  the  ma- 
jority itself  would  enjoy  the  same  power  of  unlimited 
tyranny.  For  example,  the  workers  in  the  principal  in- 
dustries could  effectively  combine  for  the  purpose  of 
making  their  own  remuneration  exorbitantly  high,  and 
the  remuneration  of  all  other  workers  inhumanly  low. 
Indeed,  there  is  no  practical  limit  to  the  economic  op- 
pression that  a  majoritj'  might  inflict  upon  a  minority. 

Even  if  we  could  bring  ourselves  to  put  up  with  a 
regime  of  industrial  and  social  servitude,  we  cannot  wel- 
come a  system  that  would  inevitably  lead  to  industrial 
and  social  bankruptcy.  When  we  turn  from  individual 
to  social  considerations,  we  find  that  a  socialist  organiza- 
tion of  industry  would,  as  Pope  Leo  said,  end  in  uni- 
versal "misery  and  degradation."  It  would  not  work, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  could  not  command  the 
motives  that  are  required  for  efficient  and  sufficient 
production.  The  salaried  directors  of  industry  would 
not  have  the  indispensable  incentive  that  is  today  pro- 
vided by  the  prospect  of  indefinite  gain.  Even  if  they 
had  the  incentive,  they  would  lack  the  power;  for  their 
positions  would  be  dependent  upon  the  masses  who 


The  Church  and  Socialism  7 

worked  under  their  direction.  They  would  not  en- 
danger their  place  of  authority  by  reprimanding  or  dis- 
charging men  who  refused  to  do  a  normal  day's  work. 
That  the  majority  would  shirk,  would  work  only  as 
much  and  as  long  as  they  liked,  is  as  certain  as  the 
certainty  that  the  majority  of  industrial  tasks  will 
remain  forever  inherently  unpleasant.  The  average 
man  will  work  hard  at  them  only  when  compelled  by 
sheer  necessity,  such  as  the  fear  of  losing  his  job. 
Make  the  workers  masters  of  the  industrial  establish- 
ment, and  this  fear  would  be  ended.  Therefore  the  only 
possible  outcome  would  be  an  immense  reduction  in  the 
social  product,  with  the  resultant  universal  "misery  and 
degradation." 

The  naive  expectation  of  the  socialists  that  men 
would  work  as  hard  for  the  common  weal  as  they  now 
do  through  love  of  gain  or  fear  of  loss  is  a  futile  and 
pitiable  act  of  faith.  It  has  no  basis  in  experience- 
The  assumption  that  the  socialist  mechanism  would 
effect  a  revolutionary  transformation  in  human  motives 
and  inclinations,  and  convert  men  at  one  stroke  from 
egoists  into  altruists,  indicates  that  the  socialist  be- 
lievers are  in  the  habit  of  using  their  emotions  instead  of 
their  intellects  for  the  business  of  thinking,  and  are 
unable  to  distinguish  between  aspirations  and  facts. 
They  ask  us  to  accept  hope  and  prophecy  in  place  of  . 
the  uncomfortable  conclusions  of  history. 

So  far  as  the  economic  proposals  of  socialism  are 
concerned,  the  condemnation  pronounced  by  Pope  Leo 
XIII  and  Pope  Pius  X  remains  in  full  vigor,  and  the 


8  The  Church  and  Socialism 

reasons  for  the  condemnation  are  still  substantially 
applicable  and  conclusive.  In  the  next  article  we  shall 
consider  socialism  in  its  moral  and  religious  aspects. 

II 

In  the  preceding  article  we  showed  that  the  economic 
proposals  of  socialism  have  fallen  under  the  ban  of  the 
Church,  because  they  are  a  menace  to  individual  and 
social  welfare,  and  therefore  to  individual  and  social 
justice.  In  the  present  paper  we  shall  try  to  show  that 
the  socialist  movement  is  antagonistic  and  harmful  to 
Christian  morals  and  the  Christian  religion. 

By  the  socialist  movement  we  mean  the  organized 
association  of  socialists  that  exists  today,  with  its 
writers,  speakers,  books,  journals  and  other  methods  of 
propaganda.  It  is  the  means  by  which  socialist  prin- 
ciples are  explained,  defended  and  diffused.  Now  the 
socialist  movement  advocates  not  merely  the  collective 
ownership  and  management  of  the  instruments  of  pro- 
duction but  certain  theories  of  philosophy  and  ethics 
and  a  certain  attitude  toward  religion. 

It  professes  not  merely  an  economic  theory  but  a 
philosophy  of  social  evolution  and  of  life.  This  philoso- 
phy is  directly  opposed  to  the  doctrines  of  Christianity. 

The  main  tenet  of  this  philosophy,  and  the  main 
reason  of  this  hostility  to  Christian  principles,  is  the 
theory  of  economic  determinism.  While  this  phase  is 
formidable,  it  is  as  intelligible  as  its  synonyms,  "the 
economic  interpretation  of  history,"  "the  materialistic 
conception  of  history,"  "historical  materialism,"  etc. 


The|Chuhch  and  Socialism  9 

According  to  the  theory  of  economic  determinism, 
all  social  institutions  and  social  beliefs  are  at  bottom 
determined,  caused  to  be  v/liat  they  are,  by  economic 
factors  and  conditions,  by  the  methods  of  production 
and  distribution.  At  any  given  time  the  existing  sex 
relations,  governments,  laws,  forms  of  religion  and 
education,  and  the  corresponding  beliefs,  doctrines  and 
opinions,  are  what  they  are  rather  than  something  else, 
because  the  prevailing  industrial  system  is  what  it  is 
rather  than  something  else. 

As  the  economic  factor  is  dominant  and  determin- 
ing among  the  social  phenomena  of  any  particular 
epoch,  so  it  has  produced  and  determined  the  social 
changes  that  have  taken  place  throughout  history.  The 
evolution  and  variations  in  domestic,  governmental  and 
educational  institutions,  and  in  the  ethical,  religious 
and  political  beliefs  of  men,  l;ave  all  been  brought  about 
by  changes  in  economic  factors  and  conditions,  by 
changes  in  the  vray  men  got  their  living. 

A  few  illustrations,  taken  from  standard  socialist 
writers,  will  help  make  clear  the  meaning  of  the  theory: 

When  all  goods  were  owned  in  common,  sexual  'pro- 
miscuity prevailed,  because  there  was  no  economic  reason 
for  stable  unions.  When  private  property  was  intro- 
duced the  monogamic  family  came  into  existence  because 
men  wanted  their  wealth  to  go  to  their  own  children 
exclusively . 

Primitive  Christianity  was  mainly  a  revolutionary 
movement  of  the  slaves  and  proletariat  of  the  Roman 
empire;  m.edieval  Catholicism  was  the  outcome  of  the 


10  The  Church  and  Socialism 

feudal  economic  organization;  Protestantism  was  a 
revolt  against  the  economic  tyranny  of  the  church  as 
regards  tithes  and  indulgences.  Slavery  gave  way  to 
serfdom  and  serfdom  to  individual  liberty  when  the 
economic  masters  of  society  found  that  these  institu- 
tions were  no  longer  profitable. 

Today  the  prevailing  morality  sanctions  all  ethical 
notions  and  all  practices  which  tend  to  increase  the 
profits  of  the  capitalist.     Thus  far  the  determinist. 

It  is  now  universally  recognized  by  competent  students 
of  the  subject  that  economic  conditions  do  exert  a  con- 
siderable influence  upon  other  social  conditions,  and  even 
upon  mens  practical  notions  of  right  and  wrong. 

If  economic  determinism  meant  no  more  than  this, 
it  would  not  necessarily  make  the  socialist  movement 
hostile  to  Christianity.  As  understood  by  its  leading 
exponents,  however,  the  theory  goes  far  beyond  this 
moderate  conception.  These  men  have  been,  with 
scarcely  an  exception,  believers  in  philosophical  ma- 
terialism. That  is,  they  hold  that  all  existing  things 
are  matter,  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  spirit.  Hence 
they  deny  that  the  will  of  man  is  free,  and  assert  that 
the  economic  factors  in  society  produce  all  the  afore- 
mentioned effects  and  changes  necessarily,  as  heat 
melts  ice  and  rain  wets  the  ground. 

Some  of  the  more  important  conclusions  regarding 
morality  which  flow  from  this  theory  may  be  briefly 
set  forth.  Since  men  have  not  free  wills,  they  cannot 
properly  be  blamed  for  the  evil  nor  praised  for  the 
good  that  they  do.     They  are  no  more  responsible  for 


The  Church  and  Socialism  11 

their  actions  than  are  dogs  and  earthquakes.  The 
tyranny  of  the  capitalist  and  the  dishonesty  of  the 
laborer  are  alike  caused  by  forces  over  which  they 
have  no  genuine  control. 

Hence  the  frequent  assertion  in  socialist  writings 
that  the  evils  of  our  economic  order  are  due  to  the 
system  and  not  at  all  to  the  individuals.  Obviously 
this  rejection  of  the  human  soul,  of  free  will,  and  of 
human  responsibility  is  directly  contrary  to  Christian 
principles. 

As  indicated  above,  the  economic  determinist  holds 
that  the  present  form  of  domestic  society  is  an  effect 
of  the  present  form  of  industrial  society.  When  the 
system  of  private  ownership  of  the  means  of  produc- 
tion has  been  supplanted  by  collective  ownership,  the 
relations  between  the  sexes  will  change  correspondingly- 
Woman  will  then  be  "economically  independent,"  and 
therefore  will  bind  herself  to  a  man  only  when  moved 
by  love,  and  will  remain  with  him  only  as  long  as  love 
remains.  The  union  of  man  and  woman  under  social- 
ism will  be  subject  to  dissolution  at  the  will  of  either 
party. 

In  the  words  of  Morris  Hillquit,  "most  socialists  favor 
dissolubility  of  the  marriage  ties  at  the  pleasure  of  the 
contracting  parties  ("Socialism;  Promise  or  Menace," 
p.  163).  The  antagonism  between  this  view  and  the 
Christian  principle  of  marriage  is  patent. 

Other  anti-Christian  implications  of  the  theory  of 
economic  determinism  are:  The  child  belongs  primarily 
to  the  state;  all  actions  which  are  truly  conducive  to 


H  The  Church  and  Socialism 

the  establishneit  of  socialism  are  morally  justifiable; 
the  welfare  of  the  socialist  state  is  the  supreme  prin- 
ciple and  determii)ant  of  riglit  and  Avrong;  and  against 
the  state  the  individual  has  no  rights. 

The  attitude  of  the  socialist  movement  toward  re- 
ligion is  explained  ;is  well  as  stated  by  the  socialist 
daily,  the  New  York  Call:  "The  theory  of  economic 
determinism  alone,  if  thoroughly  grasped,  leaves  no 
room  for  a  belief  in  the  supernatural"     (?.Iarch  2, 1911). 

Assuredly  so.  If  ail  that  exists  be  matter,  and  if  all 
social  institutions,  changes  and  beliefs  be  produced  by 
economic  forces,  the-e  is  no  place  in  the  universe  for 
God  or  a  responsible  human  soul.  The  economic  deter- 
minist  cannot  consistently  be  a  religious  believer.  And 
he  must  logically  expect  the  disap],earance  of  religion 
in  the  socialist  state.  For  if  religious  ideas  he  deier. 
mined  and  caused  by  the  prevailing  mode  of  produdion, 
they  must  pass  out  with  the  passing  of  the  present  sys- 
tem. Christianity  cannot  survive  the  destruction  of  its 
capitalistic  basis. 

Such  is  ti:e  attitude  toward  religion  that  vre  should 
expect  intelligent  socialists  to  take  if  they  were  logical. 
When  we  exair.Ine  their  utterances  we  find  this  expec- 
tation fulfilled.  Speaking  summarily,  we  assert  that 
all  the  great  leaders,  most  of  the  important  books  and 
journals  and  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  oratorical 
productions  of  the  socialist  movement  are  in  greater  or 
less  degree  opposed  to  Christianity;  and  that  the  num- 
ber of  socialist  leaders,  journalists  and  oratorical  utter- 
ances that  avow  a  belief  in  any  form  of  supernatural 


The  Church  and  wSocialism  13 

religion  is  negligible.  We  have  not  the  space  to  prove 
these  assertions  by  adequate  citations,  but  we  submit 
three  which  may  arouse  sufficient  interest  to  induce 
further  investigation. 

James  Leatham,  a  prominent  English  socialist,  de- 
clared that  he  could  not  recall  "a  single  instance  of  a 
person  who  is  at  one  and  the  same  time  a  really  earnest 
socialist  and  an  orthodox  Christian."  ("Socialism  and 
Character,"  pp.  2,  3.) 

William  English  Walling,  an  able  and  well-hnoivn 
American  socialist,  tells  iis  that  ''the  majority  of  socialists 
are  firmly  convinced  that  socialism  and  modern  science 
must  finally  lead  to  a  state  of  society  ivhere  there  will  be 
no  room  whatever  for  religion  in  any  forv}."  ("The 
Larger  Aspects  of  Socialism,"  p.  381.) 

Morris  Hillquit,  whose  competency  to  rej^resent  the 
mind  of  the  socialist  movement  will  not  be  questioned, 
is  "inclined  to  believe  that  the  majority  of  socialists 
find  it  difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  reconcile  their 
general  philosophic  views  v.ith  the  doctrines  and  prac- 
tices of  dogmatic  religious  creeds."  ("Socialism: 
Promise  or  Menace?"  p.  204.  Chapter  VI  of  this  work 
contains  an  abundance  of  quotations  from,  and  refer- 
ences to,  other  socialists  on  this  subject.) 

Some  of  our  readers  will  object  that  they  can  be- 
lieve in  the  economic  proposals  of  socialism  witliout 
accepting  the  immoral  and  irreligious  theories  outlined 
in  the  foregoing  paragraphs. 

We  reply  by  agreeing  with  them.  Economic  deter- 
minism is  not  essential  to  a  belief  in  economic  socialism. 


14  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Moreover,  there  exist  socialists  who  have  made  and  do 
make  this  distinction.  Neither  the  little  band  of  so- 
called  Christian  Socialists  nor  the  select  coterie  of 
Fabian  Socialists  have  subscribed  to  this  materialistic 
ami  anti-Christian  philosophy. 

But  these  groups  are  relatively  unimportant  ele- 
ments in  the  socialist  movement  as  a  whole.  The  vast 
majority  of  the  socialists  of  the  world  are  adherents 
of  what  is  known  as  Marxian  or  International  Social- 
ism, which  does  profess  this  attitude  of  hostility  to 
Christian  ethics  and  the  Christian  religion. 

The  jew  followers  of  the  international  movement  who 
still  retain  their  Christian  faith  belong  for  the  most  part 
to  that  element  of  the  rank  and  file  that  has  not  had  the 
opportunity  or  the  capacity  to  become  acquainted  with  the 
underlying  socialist  philosophy. 

According  as  they  make  progress  in  the  study  of 
the  fundamental  principles,  they  will  imitate  the  great 
majority  by  yielding  to  the  anti-religious  theories  and 
influences  that  permeate  the  leadership,  the  literature 
and  the  entire  atmosphere  of  the  organization.  Such 
has  been  the  unvarying  lesson  of  experience. 

In  this  situation  there  is  but  one  possible  attitude  to 
be  taken  by  the  Catholic  Church.  It  is  that  of  vigilant 
and  ceaseless  opposition  to  the  concrete,  living  institu- 
tion called  the  socialist  movement. 

Even  if  the  movement  were  aiming  at  the  holiest 
and  most  beneficent  social  order  that  can  be  conceived, 
it  would  necessarily  fall  under  the  ban  of  the  Church. 
An  organization  and  movement  that  is  saturated  with 


The  Church  and  Socialism  1 

materialism  and  irreligion,  that  constantly  propagates 
an  un-Christian  philosophy  of  life,  that  sooner  or  later 
makes  atheists  or  rationalists  of  all,  Catholics  included^ 
who  remain  within  its  ranks — cannot  reasonably  expect 
to  escape  the  active  opposition  of  the  divinely  appointed 
custodian  of  Christian  morals  and  Christian  faith. 

When  this  movement  aims,  as  it  does  aim,  at  a  social 
and  economic  order  which  would  be  destructive  of  in- 
dividual rights  and  disastrous  to  human  welfare,  it  is 
doubly  damned.  Both  as  a  movement  and  as  an  eco- 
nomic goal,  both  as  a  means  and  as  an  end,  socialism 
deserves  the  condemnation  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

In  the  two  following  articles  we  shall  show  that  the 
church  not  only  does  not  oppose  but  sanctions  all  the 
reforms  that  are  necessary  and  desirable  in  the  present 
economic  system. 

Ill 

In  the  presidential  election  of  1912  the  socialist 
candidate  received  about  900,000  votes,  of  whom  not 
more  than  one-sixth  were  members  of  the  socialist 
organization.  A  very  large  proportion  of  the  other  five- 
sixths  did  not  accept  the  complete  socialist  program. 
They  voted  the  socialist  ticket  mainly  as  a  protest 
against  economic  abuses  and  to  indicate  their  desire 
for  radical  improvements.  They  identified  socialism 
with  social  reform. 

This  attitude  is  still  held  by  thousands  among  the 
working  classes,  who  do  not  realize  the  full  meaning 
of   the   socialist  program,   and   who   think   that   the 


16  The  Church  and  Socialism 

socialist  party  is  the  only  agency  that  is  striving  for 
the  abolition  of  present  economic  wrongs. 

Hence  a  great  number  of  them  assume  that  all 
opponents  of  socialism  must  also  be  antagonists  of  social 
reform  and  defenders  of  the  evils  of  capitalism.  To 
all  who  hold  this  opinion,  and  to  all  other  persons 
whose  minds  are  open  to  evidence,  we  say  that  all  the 
necessary  reforms  of  our  industrial  system  are  eitlier 
explicitly  set  dovrn  or  implicitly  authorized  in  the  official 
teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church. 

These  propositions  we  shall  proA'e  from  that  same 
encyclical,  "On  the  Condition  of  Labor,"  which  con- 
demns socialism.  Indeed,  the  discussion  of  socialism 
occupies  only  one-fifth  of  that  document,  the  other 
four-fifths  being  devoted  to  remedies  and  reforms. 
(Copies  of  the  encyclical  can  he  obtained  for  ten  cents 
each  from  the  International  Catliolic  Truth  Society, 408 
Bergen  Street,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y.,  or  from  any  Catholic 
book  store.) 

The  language  in  which  Pope  Leo  characterizes  the 
evils  of  the  existing  system  and  the  need  of  reform  is 
worth  noting  for  its  vigor,  insight  and  sympathy.  He 
declares  that  ''some  remedy  must  he  found,  and  quicJdy 
found,  for  the  misery  and  the  wretchedness  pressing  so 
heavily  and  unjustly  on  the  vast  majority  of  the  working 
classes";  that  ''ivorkingmen  have  been  surrendered,  all 
isolated  and  helpless,  to  the  hard-heartedness  of  employers 
and  the  greed  of  unchecked  competiiion" ;  that  "a  small 
number  of  very  rich  men  has  been  alle  to  lay  upon  the 
teeming  masses  of  the  laboring  poor  a  yoke  that  is  little 
better  than  slavery." 


The  Church  and  Socialism  17 

These  sentences  are  found  in  the  opening  paragraphs 
of  the  encychcal;  near  the  close  we  find  this  statement: 
"The  condition  of  the  working  classes  is  the  pressing 
question  of  the  hour,  and  nothing  can  be  of  higher 
interest  to  all  classes  of  the  state  than  that  it  should 
be  rightly  and  reasonably  adjusted."  The  encyclical 
was  published  May,  1891. 

The  principles  and  proposals  laid  down  by  Pope  Leo 
may  be  conveniently  presented  under  four  heads :  Re- 
ligion; Individual  Action;  Private  Associations;  the 
State. 

THE    PART    OF   RELIGION 

The  Pope  repudiates  the  assumption  that  the  Church 
is  so  preoccupied  with  spiritual  things  that  she  has  no 
care  for  men's  temporal  interests.  "Her  desire  is  that 
the  poor  should  rise  above  poverty  and  wretchedness 
and  better  their  condition  in  life."  "While  the  chief 
treasure  of  society  is  virtue,  it  is  by  no  means  a  matter 
of  small  moment  to  provide  those  bodily  and  external 
commodities  the  use  of  which  is  necessary  to  virtuous 
action." 

In  these  two  sentences  are  summarily  stated  the 
Church's  attitude  toward  the  material  wellbeing  of  the 
masses,  and  the  rational  basis  of  that  attitude.  The 
Church  is  not  a  social  reform  organization,  nor  is  social 
betterment  her  main  function.  Her  mission  is  to 
bring  men  to  religion  and  to  make  them  virtuous.  But 
they  cannot  be  virtuous  without  a  certain  decent 
amount  of  material  goods.  Furthermore,  they  cannot 
be  virtuous  unless  they  practice  justice  and  charity  in 


18  The  Church  and  Socialism 

all  the  relations  of  life,  including  those  of  an  economic 
character;  therefore  the  Church  must  lay  down  and 
insist  upon  observance  of  all  moral  principles. 

"No  practical  solution  of  the  social  question,"  says 
Pope  Leo,  "will  be  found  apart  from  religion  and  the 
Church." 

This  statement  will  not  be  denied  by  any  person  who 
is  acquainted  with  the  facts  of  history,  human  nature 
and  present  conditions.  When  we  consult  history  we 
learn  that  the  Christian  principles  concerning  the  dig- 
nity and  sacredness  of  the  individual  human  person, 
the  essential  equality  of  all  persons,  the  brotherhood  of 
all  men  in  Christ,  and  the  dominion  of  the  moral  law 
over  the  industrial  as  well  as  the  other  actions  of  men, 
brought  about  the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  establish- 
ment of  innumerable  works  and  institutions  of  com- 
passion and  beneficence,  the  prohibition  of  usury  and 
the  rise  of  political  democracy.  None  of  these  reforms 
and  institutions  originated  in  a  non-Christian  land. 

When  we  study  honestly  the  tendencies  and  limita- 
tions of  human  nature  we  are  forced  to  the  conclusion 
that  men  will  never  set  up  and  maintain  a  regime  of 
social  justice  until  they  become  convinced  that  the  supreme 
law  of  life  is  the  moral  law.  The  most  cunningly  de- 
vised social  statutes  will  not  be  able  to  compel  men  to  act 
justly  in  their  economic  relations,  unless  they  are  im- 
pelled by  a  living  and  enlightened  conscience.  And  the 
voice  of  conscience  will  ordinarily  have  little  effect  if  it 
be  not  recognized  as  the  voice  of  God. 

This  means  that  an  effective  conscience  cannot  be 
developed  or  maintained  without  the  assistance  and 


The  Church  and  Socialism  19 

direction  of  religion.  When  we  consider  the  profoundly 
immoral  maxims  that  have  ruled  economic  practices  and 
relations  for  more  than  a  century,  such  as  that  every 
free  contract  is  a  fair  contract,  that  all  gain  is  la\\-ful 
that  can  be  obtained  without  the  use  of  physical  force 
or  flagrant  deception,  that  power  and  cunning  may  with 
impunity  exploit  weakness  and  ignorance,  we  see  no 
hope  of  permanent  remedies  until  these  perverse  prin- 
ciples are  dislodged  by  religion  and  religious  morality. 
Neither  legal  ordinances  nor  humanitarian  appeals 
will  be  effective.  The  determining  mass  of  men  must 
first  become  convinced  that  these  maxims  are  contrary 
to  the  law  of  morality  and  the  law  of  God.  They  can- 
not be  brought  to  such  a  conviction  by  any  social 
agency  except  organized  religion. 

But  religion  will  never  succeed  in  this  work  of  moral 
conversion  by  the  mere  preaching  of  generalities.  To 
proclaim  that  men  must  obey  God,  practice  virtue  and 
observe  the  Golden  Rule  will  not  suffice.  What  is 
needed  is  specific  moral  instruction,  specific  application 
of  moral  principles  to  the  current  industrial  practices. 
This  was  precisely  what  Pope  Leo  did,  in  so  far  as  it 
was  possible  in  a  brief  document  that  had  to  be  adapted 
to  the  varying  economic  conditions  of  the  entire  world. 
Let  us  glance  first  at  his  statements  under  the  head  of 
individual  action. 

Christian  morality,  says  Pope  Leo,  teaches  that  the 
laborer  should  carry  out  fully  and  honestly  all  equitable 
agreements  and  should  abstain  from  all  forms  of  vio- 
lence against  persons  and  property.     Here  we  have  a 


20  The  Church  and  Socialism 

direct  condcumaLion  of  labor-loafing  and  the  use  of 
physica!  force  in  industrial  disputes. 

On  the  otlier  hand,  employers,  continues  the  Pope, 
must  respect  their  employes  as  human  beings  instead  of 
treating  them  as  bondsmen,  or  "merely  as  so  much 
muscle  or  physical  power";  must  not  tax  work  people 
beyond  their  strength  nor  employ  them  at  tasks  un- 
suited  to  age  or  sex;  must  give  them  rest  from  toil  on 
the  Sabbath  and  opportunity  for  the  practice  of  re- 
ligion; and,  above  all,  must  pay  fair  wages,  instead  of 
exploiting  the  worker's  needs  for  the  sake  of  profit. 

Finally,  the  Pope  declares  that  'property  owners  have 
not  the  right  to  do  what  they  please  icith  ivhat  they  call 
their  own,  for  they  are  only  stewards  of  their  posses- 
sions; hence,  when  they  have  made  reasonable  provision 
for  their  oum  needs,  they  are  obliged  to  use  ivhat  remains 
for  the  benefit  of  the  neighbor. 

All  these  directions  are  proclaimed  by  Pope  Leo  to 
be  matters  of  strict  moral  obligation,  most  of  them  be- 
ing required  by  the  law  of  strict  justice.  Yet  they 
are  openly  ignored  by  thousands  upon  thousands  of 
employers. 

The  Pope  points  out  that  the  right  of  men  to  unite 
in  private  associations,  such  as  a  labor  union,  is  a  right 
granted  by  nature,  and  therefore  may  not  be  denied  by 
the  state.  In  our  daj^  and  country  this  right  is  prac- 
tically never  hindered  by  the  public  authorities,  but  it  is 
openly  ignored  by  those  employers  who  refuse  to  permit 
their  employes  to  organize,  or  who  refuse  to  deal  with 
the  representatives  of  labor  organizations. 


The  Church  and  Socialism  21 

The  aim  of  labor  unions,  says  the  Pope,  should  be 
"to  help  each  individual  member  to  better  his  condi- 
tion to  the  utmost  in  body,  mind  and  property."  He 
also  recommends  associations  composed  of  both  em- 
j)loyers  and  employes  to  deal  with  matters  that  are  of 
common  interest,  and  to  prevent  discord  and  strikes. 
This  is  a  justification  of  those  periodical  trade  confer- 
ences that  have  been  fostered  by  the  labor  unions  and 
the  more  enlightened  groups  of  employers. 

Pope  Leo  refers  to  and  praises  highly  the  work  of 
the  medieval  guilds.  As  we  know,  the  guilds  were  not 
merely  associations  of  workingmen  in  the  ordinary 
sense,  but  to  a  great  extent  were  cooperative  societies 
in  which  the  workers  were  the  oAvners  of  the  tools  of 
production  and  had  common  rules  for  carrying  on  the 
business  of  their  craft.  The  modern  counterpart  of  the 
guild  is  not  the  labor  union,  but  the  cooperative  pro- 
ductive association. 

It  should  be  noted  that  a  cooperative  system  of  pro- 
duction is  quite  another  thing  than  socialism.  In  the 
former  the  icorkers  of  a  given  industrial  establishment 
individually  ovjn  particular  and  definite  amounts  of 
property  in  that  establishment;  under  socialism  the  ichole 
community  ivould  own  all  the  industries  in  general,  no 
indiv'dual  being  able  to  say  that  a  definite  portion  thereof 
was  his  private  property. 

The  cooperative  establishment  is  managed  exclu- 
sively by  the  workers  engaged  in  it;  under  socialism 
every  establishment  would  be  managed  by  the  nation 
or  the  city. 


22  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Up  to  the  present  tlie  cooperative  movement  has 
achieved  practically  all  its  successes  in  agriculture, 
banking  and  merchandising.  Industrial  justice  and  in- 
dustrial democracy  demand  that  it  should  become 
widely  extended  in  the  field  of  production. 

A  social  order  in  which  the  majority  of  the  wage- 
earners  do  not  own  the  tools  with  which  they  work, 
nor  any  important  amount  of  other  productive  prop- 
erty, is  abnormal  and  cannot  endure  permanently. 
The  majority  of  the  workers  must  be  enabled  to  become 
in  some  degree  capitalists  as  well  as  wage-earners, 
owners  in  part  at  least  of  the  instruments  of  production 
in  their  respective  industries. 

The  frequency  with  which  Pope  Leo  speaks  of  the 
necessity  of  making  the  workers  property  owners,  to- 
gether with  his  sympathetic  references  to  the  guilds, 
renders  it  very  probalile  that  he  would  have  favored 
the  principles  of  cooperative  production.  Indeed,  such 
an  attitude  would  have  been  in  the  direct  line  of 
Catholic  tradition;  for,  as  Cardinal  Gasquet  observes, 
the  basis  of  property  in  pre-Reformation  times  was 
not  individualism,  but  "Christian  collectivism." 

Thank  God,  ice  Catholics  are  in  no  degree  responsible 
for  the  invention  of  the  cold,  ugly,  soulless  thing  called 
modern  capitalism,  with  its  industrial  autocracy  at  one 
extreme  and  its  proletarian  masses  at  the  other.  Without 
the  Reforniaiion  tJie  capitalism  thai  we  now  Icnow  would 
have  been,  humanly  speaking,  impossible. 

Pope  Leo  praises  and  recommends  for  imitation  the 
action  of  those  persons,  not  themselves  members  of  the 


The  Church  and  Socialism  23 

wage-earning  classes,  who  unite  in  various  associations 
for  the  benefit  of  the  laboring  people.  In  our  own 
country  are  many  such  organizations;  for  example,  the 
American  Association  for  Labor  Legislation,  the  Na- 
tional Child  Labor  Committee  and  the  National  Con- 
sumers' League,  all  of  which  have  produced  splendid 
results.  It  is  regrettable  that  the  Catholics  of  the 
United  States  have  not  taken  a  more  prominent  part 
in  such  associations. 

Indeed,  it  must  be  admitted  that  we  have  as  yet 
given  but  a  feeble  and  ineffective  response  to  the  in- 
junction that  Pope  Leo  lays  down  toward  the  close  of 
the  encyclical,  namely,  that  Catholics  "are  not  free 
to  choose  whether  they  will  take  up  the  cause  of  the 
poor  or  not;  it  is  a  matter  of  simple  duty."  This 
declaration  was  repeated  in  even  stronger  and  more 
specific  terms  by  Pope  Pius  X. 

In  the  next  and  final  article  of  the  series  we  shall 
consider  Pope  Leo's  teaching  on  the  part  in  social  re- 
form that  should  be  taken  by  the  state. 

IV 

WTiile  Catholic  teaching  rejects  the  complete  domina- 
tion of  industry  by  the  state,  as  proposed  in  the  socialist 
scheme,  it  is  very  far  from  advocating  the  opposite 
extreme  of  individualism  and  laissezfaire. 

Those  who  believe  that  the  government  should  pur- 
sue an  industrial  policy  of  non-intervention  will  find  no 
comfort  in  the  traditional  attitude  of  the  Church.  And 
they  will  be  grievously  disappointed  with  the  encyclical. 


24  The  Church  and  Socialism 

"On  the  Condition  of  Labor."  Of  the  space  devoted 
by  that  document  to  methods  of  betterment  fully  one- 
third  deals  with  the  positive  duties  incumbent  on  the 
state. 

Among  the  general  propositions  which  the  encyclical 
sets  forth  under  this  head  are  the  following:  Public 
laws,  institutions  and  administration  should  "be  such 
of  themselves  as  to  realize  public  well-being  and  private 
prosperity  ";  the  state  should  especially  "provide  for  the 
welfare  and  comfort  of  the  working  classes";  this  is 
simple  justice,  for  "it  may  be  truly  said  that  it  is  only 
by  the  labor  of  workingmen  that  the  states  grow  rich"; 
while  the  rights  of  all  persons  should  be  protected,  "the 
poor  and  helpless  have  a  claim  to  especial  considera- 
tion." 

The  general  principle  of  state  intervention  is  this: 

"Whenever  the  general  interest  or  any  particular  class 
suffers,  or  is  threatened  with  mischief  which  can  in  no 
other  way  be  met  or  prevented,  the  public  authority  must 
step  in  and  deal  with  it." 

The  last  sentence  contains  an  implicit  indorsement 
of  all  legslation  for  the  regulation  and  control  of  in- 
dustry that  is  genuinely  necessary.  In  any  particular 
case  the  question  of  state  action  is  to  be  determined  by 
the  facts:  is  such  action  the  only  adequate  remedy?  If 
it  is  it  should  be  utilized.  Pope  Leo's  principle  is  em- 
pirical and  scientijSc,  avoiding  both  the  a  priori  demand 
of  the  socialist  for  universal  state  control,  and  the 
a  priori  demand  of  the  individualist  for  the  complete 
absence  of  state  control. 


The  Church  and  Socialism  ^o 

Another  significant  fact  of  tlie  foregoing  quotations 
from  Pope  Leo  is  his  frank  acceptance  of  the  principle 
that  the  state  has  the  right  and  duty  of  legislating  for 
the  benefit  of  particular  classes,  more  especially  those 
that  are  incapable  of  defending  their  own  interests.  In 
taking  this  position  the  Pope  merely  restated  the  tradi- 
tional doctrine  of  the  church.  According  to  that  doc- 
trine, the  object  of  the  state  is  not  self-glorification,  nor 
merely  the  common  welfare  as  such,  but  the  good  of 
all  individuals  and  all  classes  of  individuals.  The  hypo- 
critical opposition  to  labor  laws  on  the  ground  that  they 
constitute  class  legislation  finds  no  sanction  in  the 
Catholic  doctrine  of  the  functions  of  the  state. 

The  specific  applications  which  Pope  Leo  makes  of 
his  general  principles  to  labor  conditions  are  worthy  of 
brief  notice. 

(A)  Strikes. — When  the  workers  go  on  strike,  says 
the  Holy  Father,  "  it  is  frequently  because  the  hours  of 
labor  are  too  long,  or  the  work  too  hard,  or  because  they 
consider  their  wages  insufficient."  The  law  should  pre- 
vent such  trouble  by  "removing  in  good  time  the  causes 
which  lead  to  conflicts  between  employers  and  em- 
ployed." 

(B)  Religion  and  Rest. — The  laborer  should  be  pro- 
tected in  that  most  precious  form  of  property,  "his  soul 
and  mind,"  for  "no  man  m.ay  with  impunity  outrage 
that  human  dignity  which  God  himself  treats  with 
reverence,  nor  stand  in  the  way  of  that  higher  life  which 
is  the  preparation  for  the  eternal  life  of  heaven,"  hence 
the  laborer  must  be  guaranteed  "rest  from  work  on 


26  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Sundays  and  certain  holy  days."  In  general,  "he  ought 
to  have  leisure  and  rest  in  proportion  to  the  wear  and 
tear  of  his  strength,"  for  "it  is  neither  just  nor  human 
to  grind  men  down  with  excessive  labor  so  as  to  stupefy 
their  minds  and  wear  out  their  bodies." 

(C)  Hours  of  Labor. — The  proper  length  of  the 
working  day  depends  on  "the  nature  of  the  work,  on 
circumstances  of  time  and  place,  and  on  the  health  and 
strength  of  the  workman."  The  general  rule  is  that 
labor  should  not  be  "protracted  over  longer  hours  than 
strength  admits." 

(D)  Woman  and  Child  Labor. — "Women  are  not 
suited  for  certain  occupations;  by  nature  they  are  fitted 
for  home  work."  Children  should  not  be  placed  "in 
workshops  and  factories  until  their  bodies  and  minds  are 
sufficiently  developed,"  for  "too  early  experience  of  lifers 
hard  toil  blights  the  young  promise  of  a  child's  faculties, 
and  renders  true  education  impossible." 

(E)  A  Living  Wage. — "Wages,  we  are  told,  are 
regulated  by  free  consent,  and  therefore  the  employer, 
when  he  pays  what  was  agreed  upon,  has  done  his  part, 
and  seemingly  is  not  called  upon  to  do  anything  beyond. 
The  only  way,  it  is  said,  in  which  injustice  might  occur 
would  be  if  the  master  refused  to  pay  the  whole  of  the 
wages,  or  if  the  workman  should  not  complete  the  work 
undertaken;  in  such  cases  the  state  should  intervene 
to  see  that  each  obtains  his  due — but  not  under  any 
other  circumstances. 

This  mode  of  reasoning  is  to  a  fair-minded  man  by  no  means 
convincing,    for    there   are   important   considerations    which    it 


The  Church  and  Socialism  27 

leaves  out  of  account  altogether  .  .  .  Every  man  has  a  right  to 
procure  what  is  required  in  order  to  live,  and  the  poor  can 
procure  it  in  no  other  way  than  through  work  and  wages. 

Let  it  be  taken  for  granted  that  workman  and  employer  should 
as  a  rule  make  free  agreements,  and  in  particular  should  agree 
freely  as  to  the  wages;  nevertheless  there  underlies  a  dictate  of 
natural  justice  more  imperious  and  ancient  than  any  bargain 
between  man  and  man,  namely,  that  remuneration  ought  to  be 
sufficient  to  support  the  wage-earner  in  reasonable  and  frugal 
comfort.  If,  through  necessity  or  fear  of  a  tvorse  evil,  the  workman 
accept  harder  conditions  because  an  employer  or  contractor  will 
afford  him  no  better,  he  is  made  the  victim  of  force  and  injustice." 

The  claim  of  the  worker  to  a  living  wage  is  here 
declared  by  a  strict  moral  right.  Although  this  prin- 
ciple had  been  for  centuries  an  integral  part  of  Catholic 
moral  teaching,  and  had  received  some  specific  recog- 
nition in  the  demands  of  labor  unions  during  the  years 
immediately  preceding  Pope  Leo's  encyclical,  the  doc- 
trine itself  had  never  before  received  such  precise, 
positive  and  authoritative  expression.  If  the  doctrine 
is  all  but  universally  accepted  to-day  a  great  part  of 
the  credit  is  due  to  Pope  Leo  XIII. 

Two  points  concerning  the  Pope's  statement  of  this 
doctrine  require  a  word  of  comment  and  explanation. 
They  are:  the  meaning  and  scope  of  "reasonable  and 
frugal  comfort,"  and  the  part  which  Pope  Leo  would 
accord  to  the  state  in  the  enforcement  of  the  living 
wage. 

As  to  the  first,  there  ciannot  be  the  slightest  doubt 
that  the  Pope  intended  the  wage  to  be  understood  as 
comprising  not  merely  the  means  of  keeping  body  and 
soul  together  and  continuing  at  work,^but  as  including 


28  The  Church  and  Socialism 

all  things  required  for  the  reasonable  maintenance  and 
development  of  the  human  faculties,  physical,  mental, 
moral  and  religious. 

No  fair-minded  person  can  read  the  encyclical 
through  and  escape  the  conclusion  that  the  Pope  had 
not  only  a  warm  sympathy  with  the  condition  and 
aspirations  of  the  laboring  classes,  but  a  reasoned  and 
profound  conviction  of  the  intrinsic  worth,  dignity, 
sacredness  and  rights  of  the  worker  as  a  person,  as  a 
human  being  with  an  inviolable  claim  to  a  normal  and 
human  life. 

Again,  while  the  Pope  did  not  specifically  say  in  the 
passage  quoted  above  that  the  living  wage  should  be 
sufficient  for  the  vrorker's  family  as  well  as  himself, 
other  parts  of  the  encyclical  make  the  fact  clear  be- 
yond any  reasonable  doubt.  In  the  second  paragraph 
following  he  declares:  "If  a  workman's  wages  be  suffi- 
cient to  enable  him  to  maintain  himself,  his  wife,  and 
his  children  in  reasonable  comfort,  he  will  not  find 
it  difficult  .  .  .  to  put  by  some  httle  savings  and  thus 
secure  a  small  income."  Evidently  the  "reasonable 
comfort"  and  the  "natural  wage"  which  Pope  Leo  has 
in  mind  is  not  the  mere  equivalent  of  personal  suste- 
nance. 

The  second  question  is  whether  the  Pope  would  have 
the  living  wage  enforced  by  civil  law.  Our  only  reason 
for  hesitating  to  give  an  affirmative  answer  arises 
from  his  explicit  statement  that  recourse  should  be  had 
to  societies  and  boards,  or  some  other  method,  "in  order 
to  supersede  undue  interference  on  the  part  of  the 


The  Chukch  axd  Socialism  29 

state."  Should  circumstances  require,  he  says,  "the 
state  should  be  appealed  to  for  its  sanction  and  pro- 
tection." 

In  other  words,  he  vrould  have  the  state  called  in 
only  as  a  last  resort.  He  does  not  say  that  the  state 
should  never  enter  this  province.  All  the  declarations 
quoted  above,  including  that  regarding  a  living  vrage, 
are  found  in  that  section  of  the  encyclical  which  he  him- 
self specifies  as  the  discussion  of  the  functions  of  the 
state.  And  the  second  of  the  longest  paragraphs 
quoted  above  shows  that  the  Pope  explicitly  rejects 
the  theory  that  the  state  should  not  interfere  with  the 
terms  of  the  wage  contract,  and  clearly  implies  that 
it  may  fix  its  term.s  and  enforce  a  living  wage. 

Those  few^  Catholics  who  still  oppose  the  movement 
for  a  living  wage  by  law  can  get  little  comfort  from 
the  encyclical.  Before  they  can  appeal  to  it  with  any 
show  of  reason  they  will  have  to  prove  that  the  evil 
of  insufficient  wages  can  be  "met  or  prevented"  by 
some  other  means.  That  task  will  keep  them  busy 
for  a  long  time;  so  long,  in  fact,  that  they  v/ill  all  be 
dead  before  it  is  finished. 

In  the  meantime,  Catholics  who  read  Pope  Leo's 
statements  without  bias,  and  who  are  not  afraid  to  face 
the  deplorable  facts  of  the  wage  situation,  rejoice  that 
the  man  wdiose  name  is  written  in  the  annals  of  the 
United  States  Supreme  Court  as  the  ofiSciai  upholder 
of  the  first  minimum  wage  law  in  the  United  States 
is  a  priest,  tlie  Rev.  Edwin  V.  O'Hara. 

(F)  Private  Property. — Pope  Leo  condemns  the  in- 


80  The^Church  and  Socialism 

equitable  division  of  property  which  enables  one  party 
to  "grasp  the  whole  of  labor  and  trade,  to  manipulate 
for  its  own  benefit  and  its  own  purposes  all  the  sources 
of  supply,  and  which  is  even  represented  in  the  councils 
of  the  state  itself." 

Therefore,  he  says,  "the  law  should  favor  oivnership 
and  its  policy  should  be  to  induce  as  many  as  possible  of 
the  humbler  class  to  become  owners."  By  this  means 
"the  gulf  between  vast  wealth  and  sheer  poverty  will  be 
bridged  over." 

The  Pope  is  speaking  of  ownership  of  land,  and  his 
words  are  strictly  applicable  to  the  rural  portion  of  the 
United  States.  All  observing  students  are  becoming 
alarmed  at  the  growth  of  tenancy  in  our  agricultural 
sections,  and  realize  that  systematic  and  far-reaching 
assistance  will  have  to  be  given  by  the  government  to 
convert  the  masses  of  tenant  farmers  into  farm  owners. 

The  principle  of  Pope  Leo's  statements  can  be  ap- 
plied quite  as  well  to  conditions  in  the  cities.  As 
pointed  out  in  our  last  article,  no  permanient  solution  of 
the  social  question  will  be  obtained  until  the  majority 
of  the  wage  earners  become  owners  of  productive 
property,  preferably  and  so  far  as  possible  in  the  in- 
dustries in  which  they  work.  Neither  high  wages,  nor 
comfortable  working  conditions,  nor  security  of  em- 
ployment, nor  provision  against  all  the  unfavorable 
contingencies  of  life,  nor  all  of  these  together,  will 
render  the  position  of  the  working  classes  satisfactory 
if  they  must  continue  in  that  status  of  dependence 
which  marks  the  mere  wage  earner.     Like  the  tenant 


The  Church  and  Socialism  SI 

farmers,  the  urban  workers  must  be  aided  by  the 
state  to  become  property  owners. 

Such  are  the  doctrines  and  proposals  which  Pope 
Leo  would  have  the  state  put  into  operation  for  the 
benefit  of  the  working  classes.  They  do  not  constitute 
a  complete  and  formal  programme  of  labor  legislation, 
for  that  was  beyond  the  scope  of  the  encyclical.  In  a 
document  of  that  kind  the  Pope  could  do  no  more  than 
lay  down  certain  fundamental  principles  of  state  action, 
and  by  applying  these  to  some  of  the  foremost  needs  of 
labor  indicate  the  broad  outlines  of  a  comprehensive 
system  of  betterment.  The  details  can  easily  be  filled 
in  by  the  specialists  of  each  country. 

As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  concrete  methods  and  re- 
forms that  are  mentioned  by  Pope  Leo  are  in  the  main 
strikingly  similar  to  the  "platform  of  minimums" 
formulated  in  1912  by  one  of  the  committees  of  the 
National  Conference  of  Charities  and  Correctio'ns 
(Proceedings,  pp.  376-394).  Under  the  head  of  wages, 
hours,  safety  and  health,  housing,  term  of  working 
life,  compensation  or  insurance,  the  committee  endeav- 
ored to  define  the  minimum  decent  standards  of  life 
and  labor  for  the  working  people  of  America. 

Naturally  this  programme  covers  the  ground  in 
much  greater  detail  than  the  encyclical,  and  it  includes 
certain  important  topics  which  Pope  Leo  does  not 
touch;  for  example,  housing  and  insurance.  But  it 
embodies  no  principle  that  is  not  found  in  Pope  Leo's 
proposals;  for  example,  the  question  of  housing  is  im- 
plicity  met  by  the  Pope  in  his  declarations  on  a  living 


32  The  Church  and  Socialism 

wage,  and  the  question  of  insurance  by  his  demand 
that  the  worker  be  enabled  to  become  the  owner  of 
property  from  which  he  can  derive  an  income. 

All  things  co7isidered,  we  are  justiiied  in  claiming  that 
the  principles  and  proposals  set  forth  by  Pope  Leo  con- 
cerning the  function  of  the  state  in  relation  to  labor 
constitute  an  adequate  scheme  of  amelioraiion.  Were 
they  but  reduced  to  practice,  the  ivorkers  would  not  only 
find  their  condition  immensely  improved  hut  would  be 
able  of  themselves  to  obtain  all  the  further  advantages 
that  are  feasible  and  just. 

The  two  supreme  evils  of  our  industrial  system  are 
the  unreasonably  small  share  of  the  national  income 
obtained  by  the  majority  of  v/age-earners,  and  the 
unreasonably'-  large  share  that  goes  to  a  small  minority 
of  capitalists.  The  remedies  which  Pope  Leo  offers 
for  the  former  evil  are,  as  we  have  just  said,  sufScient. 
The  second  evil  he  does  not  directly  touch  in  the  en- 
cyclical. His  subject  was  the  "Condition  of  Labor," 
not  the  wider  topic  of  social  reform,  or  social  justice. 
Nevertheless,  he  makes  two  or  three  references  to  the 
evil  of  excessive  gain  that  are  not  without  significance 
when  taken  in  connection  with  the  traditional  teaching 
of  the  Church. 

He  declares  that  the  hard  condition  of  the  working 
classes  "has  been  increased  by  rapacious  usury,  which, 
although  more  than  once  condemned  by  the  Church,  is 
nevertheless  under  a  different  guise  but  with  the  like 
injustice  still  practiced  by  covetous  and  grasping  men." 
Again,  he  enjoins  the  rich  to  "refrain  from  cutting  down 


The  Church  and  Socialism  33 

the  workmen's  earnings,  whether  by  force,  fraud  or  by 
usuriovs  dealing." 

There  can  be  little  doubt  that  the  new  form  of  usiirj' 
stigmatized  in  these  sentences  refers  to  the  extortionate 
prices  exacted  from  the  working  classes  for  the  neces- 
saries of  life  by  the  m.onopolists.  A  certain  great  meat 
packing  industry  last  year  obtained  dividends  of  35 
per  cent.  During  the  same  period  this  concern  helped 
to  promote  an  artificial  shortage  of  hides,  with  the  re- 
sult that  the  price  of  shoes  was  kept  at  a  much  higher 
level  than  was  required  by  the  relation  between  supply 
and  demand.  Were  Pope  Leo  alive,  he  would  probably 
have  little  hesitation  in  classifying  this  coarse  injustice 
as  "usurious." 

For  centuries  the  Catholic  teaching  on  monopoly 
has  been  that  a  combination  which  artificially  raises 
the  price  of  products  above  the  market  or  competitive 
level  is  guilty  of  unjust  dealing,  and  that  such  practices 
ought  to  be  prevented  by  law.  Taken  in  conjunction 
with  the  general  principle  of  state  intervention  enun- 
ciated by  Pope  Leo,  these  doctrines  constitute  a  sanc- 
tion for  the  use  of  any  legislative  method  that  is 
necessary  to  meet  the  evil  of  monopoly. 

Let  us  recall  Pope  Leo's  general  principle:  "When- 
ever the  general  interest  or  any  particular  class  suffers, 
or  is  threatened  with  mischief  which  can  in  no  other 
way  be  met  or  prevented,  the  public  authority  must 
step  in  and  deal  with  it."  Therefore,  if  tliat  "usurious 
dealing"  which  is  practiced  by  monopolistic  concerns 
for  the  sake  of  extortionate  profits  can  "in  no  other 


34  The  Church  and  Socl\lism 

way  be  met  or  prevented"  than  by  the  destruction  of 
the  monopoly,  or  by  fixing  maximum  prices  for  its 
products,  or  by  state  ownership  of  the  industry,  in 
whole  or  in  part,  or  by  all  these  methods  combined, 
the  state  will  have  not  only  the  right  but  the  duty  to 
intervene  in  any  or  all  of  these  ways. 

Did  space  permit,  it  would  be  easy  to  show  that  all 
the  other  social  questions,  such  for  example  as  those 
of  land  tenure  and  taxation,  and  taxes  on  incomes  and 
inheritances,  can  be  adequately  solved  in  conformity 
with  the  social  and  moral  teachings  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  All  the  evils  of  our  industrial  system  can  be 
abolished  by  sane  and  progressive  measures  of  social 
reform,  against  which  the  Church  has  not  a  word  to  say. 
There  is  no  need  to  resort  to  socialism,  even  if  that 
scheme  would  not  leave  the  last  state  of  society  worse 
than  the  first.  (Elsewhere  I  have  tried  to  set  forth 
in  detail  a  comprehensive  program  of  reforms,  "Dis- 
tributive Justice,"  The  Macmillan  Company.) 


II 

PRINCIPLES  AND  PROPOSALS  OF  SOCIAL 
REFORM 

Social  reform  is  here  taken  to  mean  reform  of  in- 
dustrial conditions,  not  of  all  social  conditions;  hence 
we  have  nothing  to  do  with  such  social  problems  as 
the  divorce  question,  the  liquor  traffic,  tuberculosis, 
or  methods  of  relieving  distress.  While  all  these  are 
sociah  questions,  they  are  not  the  social  question. 
"Industrial  conditions"  include  the  production,  but 
chiefly  the  distribution  of  wealth.  The  latter  con- 
stitutes the  most  important  of  the  social  questions, 
because  it  deeply  affects  all  the  others. 

Most  of  the  principles,  as  well  as  the  methods  and 
measures,  that  I  shall  advocate  would  probably  be 
accepted  by  the  majority  of  the  American  people. 
All  of  the  principles  have  received  the  explicit  endorse- 
ment of  Catholic  authority,  and  all  of  the  measures  are 
in  harmony  with  Catholic  teaching.  This  authority 
and  this  teaching  are  found  in  the  traditional  doctrines 
of  the  Church,  particularlv  in  the  Encyclicals  of  Leo 
XIII  and  Pius  X. 

I  shall  discuss  the  subject  under  the  heads  of  the 
four  main  agencies  of  social  reform:  The  Individual; 
Private  Association;  the  State;  and  the  Church. 

The  individual  is  not  the  mere  creation  of  his  en- 
vironment, as  socialists  and  determinists  would  have 
us  believe.     He  can  to  a  great  extent  control  and  modify 

35 


36  The  Church  and  SociALisiM 

his  environment  through  liis  free  will.  In  the  majority 
of  cases  the  laborer  could  in  some  dejj^ree  better  his 
condition  by  more  energy,  honesty,  and  thrift,  and  by 
avoiding  indolence,  shirking,  and  wastefulness.  He 
could  also  acquire  a  higher  sense  of  his  own  respon- 
sibility for  his  condition.  While  it  is  not  true  that  in 
America  everyone  gets  wliat  he  deserves  and  earns,  it 
is  a  fact  that  the  fortunes  of  every  man  depend  to  some 
extent  upon  his  own  efforts.  Individual  employers 
could  treat  tlieir  employes  better  than  they  do,  despite 
the  sins  of  other  onployers.  The  well-disposed  em- 
ployer is  not  aways  com])elled  to  follow  the  bad 
example  of  his  comj^etitors  by  oppressing  labor. 
Even  if  only  a  minority  of  employers  and  a  minority  of 
employes  should  honestly  strive  to  do  a  little  better 
than  the  majority  of  the  members  of  their  classes, 
their  action  would  have  a  most  beneficial  effect  upon 
the  whole  of  industry.  Individual  employers  and 
individual  em.ployes  are  under  moral  obligation  to 
rise  above  the  low  levels  of  business  and  industrial 
conduct  in  which  they  find  themselves.  To  conclude 
that  they  must  do  as  everybody  else  does  is  to  adopt 
the  working  creed  of  cowards. 

The  well-to-do  and  the  rich  could  put  away  that 
false  conception  of  life  and  values  which  perm.eates 
ail  classes  of  contemporary  society,  and  which  holds 
that  right  life  consists  in  the  indefinite  expansion  and 
satisfaction  of  material  wants.  They  could  spend  very 
much  less  money  for  food,  clothing,  shelter,  amuse- 
ments, and  "social"  activities,  and  very  much  more  for 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  37 

the  cultivation  of  their  minds  and  hearts.  As  a  rule, 
the  family  that  spends  more  than  ten  thousand  dollars 
per  year  for  the  satisfaction  of  its  material  wants  would 
be  better  off,  physically,  intellectually,  and  morally,  if 
its  expenditures  were  kept  below  that  limit.  If  the 
rich  and  the  well-to-do  were  to  adopt  saner  views  and 
practices  in  this  matter  of  personal  expenditures,  they 
would  set  a  most  beneficial  example  to  all  the  poorer 
classes,  would  do  much  to  diminish  class  envy  and 
hatred,  and  would  have  abundant  means  to  carry  on 
charitable,  educational,  and  reform  works  of  every 
description.  The  importance  and  necessity  of  this 
kind  of  individual  action  can  scarcely  be  exaggerated. 

The  contributions  that  can  be  made  by  individuals 
to  the  solution  of  the  social  question,  is,  therefore, 
by  no  means  insignificant.  If  men  but  applied  the 
commandment  of  brotherly  love  to  industrial  relations, 
they  would  establish  the  reign  not  onlj'  of  peace  and 
good  will,  but  of  social  justice;  for  charity  includes  and 
is  broader  than  justice.  Since  they  will  not  do  this  to 
the  extent  that  is  necessary,  we  must  have  recourse  to 
other  and  additional  remedies. 

There  is  need  of  organization,  in  order  that  men 
may  be  able  to  do  in  this  way  what  they  cannot  ac- 
complish separately.  First  in  importance  among  so- 
cieties come  labor  unions.  This  is  the  statement  of 
Pope  Leo  XIII.  At  this  late  day  labor  unions  do  not 
call  for  a  formal  defense  or  justification.  They  have 
probably  done  more  for  the  betterment  of  the  woiking 
population  than  all  other  agencies  combined,  with  the 


A  rr-f  n/1  c: 


38  The  Church  and  Socialism 

exception  of  religion.  Some  of  their  achievements  have 
been  brought  about  by  direct  influence  exerted  upon 
employers,  and,  not  a  little  indirectly,  by  moulding 
public  opinion  and  legislation.  Labor  unions  are  n 
permanent  and  necessary  institution  of  our  social  and 
industrial  life,  and  ought  to  be  continued  for  their 
educational  influence,  even  if  they  were  no  longer 
needed  for  obtaining  such  material  benefits  as  better 
wages,  hours,  or  other  conditions  of  emplo^'ment.  To 
be  sure,  the  abuses  must  be  put  away.  Violence, 
limitation  of  apprentices,  and  unreasonable  restriction 
of  output  must  bo  discarded,  not  only  in  theory  but  in 
practice.  Let  us,  however,  look  at  this  matter  in  its 
proper  proportions.  Every  considerable  violation  of 
justice  or  charity  by  organized  labor  can  be,  at  least, 
duplicated  in  the  history  of  capital.  The  sins  of  capital 
have  been  less  crude  and  s])ectacular.  but  not  less 
cruel  nor  injurious  than  those  of  labor. 

Employers'  associations  are  likewise  proper  and 
necessa^5^  Of  course,  they  should  not  be  used  for 
unjust  ends  any  more  than  labor  organizations. 
Neither  kind  of  association  should  regard  itself  pri- 
marily as  a  fighting  institution,  but  as  a  means  of 
promoting  the  welfare  of  its  members  effectively  and 
intelligently,  and  of  solving  in  the  most  satisfactory 
way  those  problems  which  are  of  common  interest 
to  both  capital  and  labor. 

Hence  there  ought  to  be  some  sort  of  union  or 
conference  which  vv-jll  include  the  representatives  of 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  39 

both  employers'  and  employes'  organizations.  Pope 
Leo  recommends  this  form  of  association,  although  he 
admits  that  it  cannot  be  modeled  after  the  Medieval 
Guilds,  which  embraced  masters  and  men  in  very  close 
union.  Probably  the  only  feasible  association  of  this 
sort  is  the  periodical  conference  between  employers 
and  employes  for  the  purpose  of  making  what  are  called 
"trade  agreements"  regarding  wages  and  all  other 
conditions  of  employment.  Conferences  of  this  kind 
have  been  in  vogue  in  the  coal  mining  industry  for 
many  years,  with  the  very  happiest  results  for  both 
parties  and  for  the  public  generally.  In  great  in- 
dustries these  conferences  are  absolutely  necessary  in 
the  interest  of  peace  and  justice.  Employers  who 
refuse  to  meet  their  employes  on  this  basis  are  deserving 
of  the  .severest  condemnation.  This  much  at  least  of 
Christian  equality  and  industrial  democracy  is  es- 
sential if  the  wage  system  is  to  have  the  stability  to 
withstand  the  attacks  of  revolution. 

Cooperative  societies  are  also  important  and  neces- 
sary. These  are  of  many  varieties,  but  the  aim  of  all 
is  essentially  the  same.  They  seek  to  distribute  among 
their  members  the  profits  that  now  go  to  capitalists 
and  middlemen,  and  to  make  the  wage-earner  a  sharer 
in  the  ownership  of  productive  property.  The  chief 
kinds  are  producers,  consumers,  agricultural  and  credit 
associations.  Consumers'  and  credit  associations  have 
been  the  most  successful,  the  former  in  Great  Britain, 
the  latter  on  the  Continent,  especially  in  Germany. 
In  the  former — that  is,  cooperative  stores — the  profits, 


•K)  Th;:  Cut  rch  and  Socialism 

above  a  ino<lprate  rate  of  interest  to  tlie  stockiiolders, 
are  divided  among  the  purchasers  of  goods  and  the 
emplo;,'es  of  tl:e  concern.  Tims  wage-earners  and 
salary-earners  become  owners  of  small  caj)ital  and 
receive  the  profits  that  otherwise  v.ould  go  to  a  distinct 
capitalist  class.  Of  credit  associations  the  most 
prominent  are  the  Raififeisen  bard^s,  which  are  found 
ch.iefly  in  agricultural  districts,  and  loan  money  to 
members  at  5  per  cent.  They  are  particularly  bene- 
ficial to  small  farmers,  who  would  be  unable  to  obtain 
credit  at  the  ordinary  commercial  banks.  Approxi- 
mately one-fourth  of  the  population  of  Great  Britain 
shares  in  the  benefits  of  cooperative  stores,  while  in 
Germany  alone  more  than  tvvo  million  persons  are 
interested  in  the  RaifTeisen  banks.  Cooperative  as- 
sociations for  production  have  not  been  so  successful, 
owing  to  their  greater  complexity  and  the  greater  need 
of  specialized  business  ability,  but  they  are  growing 
steadily  all  over  Europe,  especially  in  Great  Britain, 
and  with  time  and  patience  will  undoubtedly  continue 
to  increase  and  prosper.  In  agriculture,  cooperation 
takes  the  form  mainly  of  associations  for  production, 
as  the  cooperative  creameries  of  Denmark  and  Ireland, 
and  for  marketing,  as  the  farm.ers'  selling  associatioi^s 
m  England.  In  all  th.ese  kinds  of  cooperation  the 
Catholics  of  Europe  have  taken  a  very  prominent  part, 
both  the  laity  and  tlie  clergy. 

The  United  States  are  still  very  backward  in  this 
movement,  but  there  are  signs  of  a  concerted  and 
widespread  advance  in  the  near  future.     Through  co- 


Prin'ciples  of  Social  Reform  41 

operative  associations  the  high  cost  of  living  can  be 
reduced,  farmers  and  city  consumers  can  become 
mutually  helpful  and  profitable,  small  farmers  can 
unite  in  the  ownership  of  costly  machinery,  the  social 
spirit  can  be  developed  in  rural  regions,  country  life 
can  be  made  more  attractive,  the  disastrous  trend  to 
the  cities  can  be  checked,  and  city  wage-earners  can 
be  made  less  dependent  upon  distributive  and  manu- 
Tacturing  capitalists. 

While  not  much  emphasis  is  laid  upon  coopera- 
tion in  most  of  tl.e  current  proposals  of  social  reform,  it 
is  an  essential  element  in  any  complete  scheme  that 
rejects  socialism  or  other  revolutionary  systems.  Con- 
fining our  attention  now  to  the  laboring  classes,  we  see 
that,  in  addition  to  the  material  benefits  already  de- 
scribed, cooperation  would  be  of  the  highest  educational 
value.  It  would  develop  the  laborers'  business  capacity 
initiative,  sense  of  .self-reliance  and  of  responsibility, 
organizing  ability,  feeling  of  economic  security,  and 
reasonable  contentment.  No  one  will  deny  that  im- 
provement in  all  these  lines  would  make  the  laborer  a 
better  citizen,  a  better  man,  and  a  better  Christian. 
/Dne  of  the  most  telling  counts  in  the  socialist  indict- 
ment of  iijudern  industry  is  that  the  laborer  has  been 
divorced  from  ownership  in  the  tools  of  production, 
and  beeri  luiide  a  mere  wage  receiver,  utterly  dependent 
upon  a  ic'purate  class  of  beings  called  capitalists.  I 
do  not  believe  that  this  condition  is  final./  If  the 
wage  system  and  the  system  of  private  ownership  of 
capital  are  to  endure,  this  baneful  and  unnecessary 


42  The  Church  and  Socialism 

separation  of  the  capitalist  as  such  from  the  laborer  as 
such  must  be  greatly  lessened.  Laborers  must,  in 
ever-increasing  numbers,  become  caj^italists  as  well  as 
wage-earners.  Of  course  this  result  can  be  obtained  in 
some  measure  through  profit  sharing  and  stock  owner- 
ship in  the  ordinary  private  corporation,  but  these  are 
much  less  desirable  and  effective  than  the  cooperative 
association.  Owing  to  the  many  and  great  obstacles 
confronting  it,  the  cooperative  movement  will  advance 
slowly,  but  such  has  been  the  history  of  all  movements 
that  have  arrived  at  permanent  and  far-reaching  results. 
If  anyone  should  hasten  to  conclude  that  coopera- 
tion is  essentially  collectivism  or  socialism,  let  me  reply 
that  the  difference  between  the  two  systems  is  fun- 
damental. Cooperation  is  much  more  democratic  than 
any  form  of  state  ownership  and  management,  for  it 
leaves  the  control  of  the  business  in  the  hands  of  those 
immediately  interested.  As  already  noted,  this  de- 
velops the  business  talents  and  the  self-reliance  of  the 
members;  moreover,  it  excludes  paternalism  and 
bureaucracy.  It  is  better  for  a  local  group,  just  as  it 
is  better  for  an  individual,  to  do  things  themselves  than 
to  have  others  do  things  for  them.  State  officials  in 
charge,  say,  of  a  municipal  bakery  would,  indeed, 
represent  the  people,  but  acting,  as  they  do,  through 
state  forms  and  state  macliinery,  they  are  farther 
away  from  the  people,  less  responsive,  and  less  demo- 
cratic in  their  administration  and  spirit  than  a  co- 
operative association.  For  citizens  to  call  upon  the 
state  to  manage  affairs  which  they  can  as  eflBciently 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  43 

manage  themselves  through  private  associations,  is  to 
hasten  the  advent  of  the  servile  state  and  to  exchange 
dependence  upon  tlie  capitalist  for  dependence  upon  a 
bureaucracy,  a  form  of  government  whose  "idea  of  an 
earthly  paradise,"  to  quote  the  words  of  George  Russell 
in  his  delightful  little  volume,  "Cooperation  and 
Nationality,"  "seems  to  be  to  have  rows  of  electric 
buttons  all  round  the  official  armchair;  so  that  when 
one  of  these  buttons  is  touched  whole  battalions  of 
people  can  be  set  in  motion,"  The  essence  of  pater- 
nalism consists  in  an  unnecessary  extension  of  state 
activities.  Hence  it  would  be  paternalism  to  have 
state  operation  of  any  industry  that  is  small,  local,  and 
naturally  competitive  in  character.  Such  industries 
are  the  legitimate  field  of  cooperation.  The  great 
industry  and  the  natural  monopoly  are  beyond  the 
scope  of  cooperative  effort. 

A  final  form  of  private  associations  to  be  mentioned 
is  mutual  insurance  societies.  These  may  have  one 
or  more  of  a  great  variety  of  purposes,  but  the  most  im- 
portant of  them  aim  to  protect  their  members  against 
sickness,  accidents,  invalidity,  and  unemi)loyment. 
Within  their  legitimate  fields  they  have  about  the  same 
advantages  over  state  insurance  and  other  forms  of 
state  protection  that  cooperation  possesses  over  state 
operation  of  industry;  but  there  are  very  large  classes 
of  persons  whom  they  cannot  adequately  protect, 
namely,  poorlj"  paid  wage-earners. 

We  Catholics  are  fond  of  contrasting  the  modern 
industrial  system  uith  the  organization  of  industry 


44  The  Church  and  Socialism 

that  prevailed  in  the  Middle  Ages.  Well,  the  leading 
features  of  the  medieval  system  were  private  associa- 
tions of  all  kinds,  a  sort  of  dual  ownership  of  land  be- 
tween the  lord  and  the  tenant,  and  labor  ownership  of 
the  tools  of  production.  Tliat  system  can  never  be 
restored  as  it  then  existed,  but  the  principles  underlying 
it  can  and  ought  to  become  the  foundation  of  a  re- 
formed industrial  order.  Accordingly  we  must  have 
private  organizations  of  every  conceivable  legitimate 
sort  and  for  every  legitimate  purpose;  and  the  supreine 
aim  must  be  to  make  the  mass  of  the  wage-earners, 
in  some  degree,  owners  and  managers  of  capital. 
This  is  one  essential  part  of  social  reform  on  Catholic 
lines,  and  it  is  a  vital  part  of  any  scheme  that  v.ould 
be  an  effective  alternative  to  socialism. 

Individual  effort  and  associated  effort  will  not 
suffice  to  carry  out  an  adequate  scheme  of  social  reform. 
An  important  share  in  the  work  must  be  taken  by  the 
state.  Under  this  head  are  embraced  the  city,  the  state 
in  its  special  American  accei^tation,  and  the  nation. 
Opinions  concerning  the  proper  industrial  functions  of 
the  state  vary  from  socialism  to  the  extreme  but  happily 
antiquated  individualism  which  would  restrict  these 
functions  to  the  prevention  of  violence  and  fraud,  and 
the  enforcement  of  contracts.  Neither  of  these  is  the 
Catholic  view.  In  the  words  of  Pope  Leo  XIII: 
"Whenever  the  general  interest  or  any  particular  class 
suffers,  or  is  threatened  with  evils  which  can  in  no 
V,  ay  be  met,  the  public  authority  must  step  in  to  meet 
them."     In  this  general  statement  we  find  warrant 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  4.^ 

for  the  principle  laid  dovvn  above,  that  the  state  should 
not  do  for  individuals  anything  that  they  can,  either 
separately  or  by  association,  do  themselves.  Going 
more  into  detail,  Pope  Leo  says  that  the  state  must 
protect  the  rigl.ts  of  every  class,  and  must  especially 
care  for  the  most  helpless  sections  of  the  community, 
the  poor,  and  the  wage-earners.  All  this  is  in  accord 
with  the  traditional  Catholic  doctrine,  which  is  that 
tl  e  state  has  two  chief  duties,  namely,  to  protect 
natural  rights  and  to  promote  the  interests  of  all  orders 
and  classes  in  the  community. 

What  does  this  cover  in  our  present  industrial  con- 
ditions.''y ''To  prepare  the  way  for  a  systematic  and 
comprehensive  answer,  let  me  point  out  the  two  great 
evils  of  the  present  situation :  first,  millions  of  the 
poorest  paid  laborers  are  insufficiently  protected  against 
unjust  conditions  of  life  and  employment,  and,  second, 
immense  masses  of  fortunately  placed  capital  receive 
excessive  and  unnecessary  profits  or  interest.  Neither 
of  these  evils  can  be  adequately  met  except  by  the 
action  of  public  authority,  the  state. 

In  particular,  therefore,  the  state  must  enact  legis- 
lation which  will  prevent  any  worker  from  being  com- 
pelled to  accept  less  than  decent  living  wages.  Between 
50  and  75  per  cent  of  our  laboring  population  got  less 
than  this  measure  of  remuneration  in  1914  and  only  a 
small  proportion  of  these  persons  were  able  to  in- 
crease their  wages  themselves,  through  organization 
or  otherwise.  LaAvs  of  this  kind  have  been  successful 
in  Australia  and  England,  and  the  agitation  for  their  in- 


46  The  Church  and  Socialism 

troduction  in  this  country  is  rapidly  growing.  While 
Pope  Leo  did  not  expressly  advocate  this  measure  of 
state  activity,  his  language  seems  to  imply  it.  Most 
Catholic  authorities  today  favor  it  as  included  in  the 
primary  function  of  the  state,  that  is,  the  protection  of 
natural  rights.  Pope  Leo  declares  explicitly  that  the 
intervention  of  the  law  must  be  sought  to  prevent 
injury  to  health  by  excessive  labor,  or  by  work  unsuited 
to  age  or  sex.  In  America,  this  would  seem  to  mean  a 
legal  eight-hour  day  in  most  industrial  employments, 
abolition  of  night  work  for  women  and  children,  and  the 
fixing  of  sixteen  years  as  the  minimum  at  which  children 
could  be  continuously  employed  as  wage-earners. 
Legislation  is  likewise  imperatively  needed  to  provide 
effective  measures  of  conciliation  and  arbitration  in 
industrial  disputes  and  to  modify  judicial  discretion  in 
the  matter  of  injunctions  and  boycotting.  Further- 
more, there  must  be  provided  legal  insurance  against 
accidents,  illness,  invalidity,  and  employment.  While 
insurance  through  private  societies  is  preferable  to 
insurance  by  the  state,  it  is  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
majority  of  workers.  For  these  the  only  adequate 
provision  is  through  state  action,  either  entirely  in  the 
case  of  those  who  are  not  affiliated  with  a  private 
society,  or  in  part  by  subventions  to  those  societies 
that  are  able  to  give  partial  insurance.  The  latter 
method  is  better  than  complete  state  protection,  inas- 
much as  it  encourages  and  requires  the  workers  to  do 
what  they  can  for  themselves.  In  many  of  our  great 
cities  the  public  authority  will  be  compelled  to  under- 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  47 

take,  directly  or  indirectly,  the  housing  of  the  poorest 
classes  on  such  terms  as  will  promote  instead  of  weaken- 
ing thrift  and  self-reliance.  In  conjunction  with  this 
movement  the  state  might  well  encourage  and  assist 
the  migration  of  urban  dwellers  to  the  land.  Sys- 
tematic action  in  this  direction  would  seem  to  be  neces- 
sary to  reduce  the  price  of  food-stuffs,  to  better  the 
condition  of  those  who  are  willing  to  go  to  the  country, 
and  to  safeguard  the  health  and  vitality  and  morals 
of  the  nation.  The  fact  that  between  1900  and  1910 
city  population  in  America  increased  34  per  cent,  while 
the  increase  in  rural  districts  and  unincorporated 
towns  combined  was  only  11  per  cent,  is  of  sufficient 
gravity  to  warrant  and  demand  some  deliberate  public 
action  of  the  kind  just  recommended. 

Turning  to  the  second  of  the  two  great  evils  to  be 
met  by  state  intervention,  we  see  that  measures  must 
be  taken  to  prevent  capital  enjoying  monopolistic 
privileges  from  obtaining  more  than  the  ordinary  and 
reasonable  rate  of  profit.  Since  the  days  of  Aristotle 
men  have  known  that  human  beings  cannot,  as  a  rule, 
be  trusted  to  exercise  justly  and  reasonably  the  power  of 
monopoly.  When  this  power  is  not  restrained  by 
public  authority,  it  is  generally  used  to  extort  un- 
reasonably high  prices  and  exceptionally  high  profits 
and  interest.  Catholic  theologians  have  always  con- 
demned these  monopolistic  practices,  and  Pope  Leo 
XIII  probably  had  them  in  mind  when  he  denounced 
that  "rapacious  usury"  which  has  reappeared  in  new 
forms.     It  is  the  current  teaching  of  theologians  that 


48  The  Church  axd  Socialism 

a  man  should  not  charge  more  tban  a  moderate  rate  or 
the  prevailing  rate  of  interest  on  money  that  he  has 
loaned;  consequently,  he  is  not  justified  in  using  the 
power  of  monopoly  to  extort  a  higher  rate  of  interest 
or  profit  on  the  money  that  he  has  invested  in  a  pro- 
ductive enterprise.  To  be  sure,  allowance  must  be 
made  for  greater  risk,  and  a  bonus  ought  to  be  given 
to  encourage  and  reward  any  genuine  cheapening  of 
the  cost  of  production.  Apart  from  the  bonus  for 
improvements  in  methods  of  production,  however,  not 
a  single  valid  reason  can  be  given  for  allowing  monop- 
olistic capital  to  obtain  higher  profits  or  interest  than 
capital  which  is  compelled  to  face  competition.  To 
demand  that  the  state  sliould  somehow  require  monop- 
olistic capital  to  be  content  with  competitive  rates  of 
interest  is  merely  to  demand  the  enforcement  of  an 
elementary  rule  of  justice.  It  is  the  perception,  more 
or  less  instinctive,  of  this  elementary  truth  by  the 
average  man  that  accounts  for  the  universal  outcry 
against  trusts  and  monopolies  in  America.  This  outcry 
is  sometimes  the  result  of  misinformation  as  to  par- 
ticular facts,  but  it  is  never  mistaken  in  its  apprehension 
of  the  fundamental  moral  principle. 

Just  how  the  state  is  to  prevent  this  kind  of  extor- 
tion in  the  various  fields  in  which  it  is  practiced  cannot 
here  be  described  in  detail.  In  general  the  state 
should  regulate  the  rates  and  charges  of  all  natural 
monopolies,  such  as  railroads,  street  railways,  tele- 
graphs, telephones,  lighting,  and  ot'  er  public  service 
corporations,  so  as  to  leave  them  only  the  prevailing 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  49 

rate  of  interest  on  their  actual  investment.  Indeed, 
this  is  the  theory  upon  which  those  corporations  are 
regulated  now,  but  unfortunately  the  practice  does  not 
always  correspond  to  the  theory.  /'If  the  policy  of  regu- 
lation should  prove  inadequate  after  a  fair  and  sufficient 
trial,  undoubtedly  we  shall  be  compelled  to  adopt 
public  ownership  of  these  natural  monopolies,  after 
the  manner  of  so  many  countries  in  Europe  and 
Australia.  /  As  for  those  monopolies  that  are  not 
natural,  or  that  have  not  been  proved  to  be  of  this 
character,  those  concerns  commonly  known  as  trusts, 
they  must  likewise  be  restricted  to  the  prevailing 
rate  of  interest  on  their  actual  investment.  One 
of  two,  or  possibly  three,  methods  must  be  adopted 
to  reach  this  end.  They  must  be  divided  into  a 
sufficient  number  of  parts  to  ensure  actual  com- 
petition, or  if  this  proves  to  be  impossible  or  unde- 
sirable, the  state  must  fix  the  maximum  prices  tV'at 
they  will  be  allowed  to  charge  consumers.  This 
would  be  merely  returning  to  t' e  practice  of  the  Catho- 
lic Middle  Ages.  The  possible  third  alternative  is 
that  the  state  should  compete  with  some  of  the  ob- 
stinate and  intractable  trusts  by  manufacturing  and 
selling  their  kinds  of  products.  However,  this  seems 
scarcely  necessary,  except  temporarily,  and  in  a  few 
extreme  cases.  If  competition  ^\  ere  only  guaranteed  a 
fair  chance,  something  that  it  has  not  enjoyed  in 
this  country  for  t^  e  last  t'  irty  years,  it  would  probably 
produce  goods  just  as  cheaply  as  monopoly,  would 
permit  of  the  largest  plants   that  are  economically 


50  The  Church  and  Socialism 

desirable,   and   would,   therefore,   render  unnecessary 
legal  regulation  of  prices. 

Finally,  the  state  must  introduce  comprehensive 
reforms  in  the  field  of  taxation.  The  rapid  increase 
in  the  value  of  land,  both  rural  and  urban;  the  vanishing 
supply  of  new  agricultural  land;  the  immense  numbers 
of  people  who  possess  no  land  and  who  find  possession 
of  it  becoming,  day  by  day,  further  and  further  beyond 
their  reach,  and  the  appalling  congestion  of  population 
in  many  of  our  great  cities — demand  immediate  and 
systematic  correction  and  remedy.  Between  1900  and 
1910,  farm  land  rose  in  value  108  per  cent  per  acre,  while 
great  tracts  in  the  cities  have  advanced  with  even 
greater  rapidity.  In  the  interest  of  the  common  good 
it  would  be  highly  desirable  that  the  average  value  of 
land  should  not  rise  above  its  present  level.  While 
the  upward  movement  cannot  be  wholly  prevented,  it 
can  and  should  be  moderated  by  a  gradual  transfer  of 
some  of  the  taxes  from  the  necessities  of  life  and  from 
improvements  to  land,  and  by  a  special  tax  on  the 
increases  in  land  value,  particularly  in  cities.  Both 
these  methods  have  already  been  employed  with 
excellent  results,  the  former  in  Australia  and  Western 
Canada,  the  latter  in  Germany.  Of  course  this  higher 
taxation  of  land  should  not  be  imposed  in  such  a  way 
as  to  inflict  loss  upon  any  land-owner,  for,  despite 
the  contentions  of  the  single-taxers,  titles  to  land  are 
quite  as  valid  in  morals  as  any  other  property  rights. 
But  there  is  no  practical  danger  that  anything  of  this 
sort  will  happen.     Moreover,  all  incomes  and  inherit- 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  51 

ances  above  certain  minimum  exemptions  should  be 
subjected  to  taxation,  and  the  tax  should  be  progressive. 
This  would  be  in  harmdny  with  the  rules  of  just  taxa- 
tion as  laid  do'wn  for  centuries  by  the  Catholic  moral 
theologians. 

All  these  activities  of  the  state  make  for  greater 
social  justice.  They  are  all  necessary  because  the 
reforms  that  they  aim  at  cannot  be  brought  about  in 
any  other  way.  They  are  neither  paternalistic  nor 
injurious  to  the  liberty  of  the  individual;  for  they  do 
nothing  that  the  individual  could  do  for  himself,  and  the 
only  individual  liberty  that  they  interfere  with  is  the 
license  of  a  small  minority  to  oppress  the  majority. 
While  they  are  not  all  specifically  recommended  in  Pope 
Leo's  Encyclicals,  they  are  in  agreement  with  the 
general  teaching  of  these  documents. 

Pope  Leo  declared  that  while  the  social  question 
demands  the  attention  of  "the  rulers  of  states,  of 
employers  of  labor,  of  the  wealthy,  and  of  the  working 
population  themselves,  ...  all  the  striving  of  men  will 
be  vain  if  they  leave  out  the  Church."  Surely  no  man 
who  honestly  studies  social  facts  and  tendencies  as  they 
are  can  doubt  this  statement.  The  social  question  will 
not  be  solved  without  the  aid  of  religion.  On  the  other 
hand,  religion  alone  will  not  and  should  not  be  expected 
to  furnish  the  whole  solution.  For  the  Church  is  not  a 
social  reform  institution,  nor  is  it  her  function  to  pro- 
pose specific  economic  and  social  remedies.  Her  pri- 
mary and  supreme  mission  is  to  save  the  souls  of  men 
for  an  eternal  existence  with  God.     To  take  social 


52  The  Chuuch  and  Socialism 

reform  for  her  mission  "would  be  to  mistake  a  part  of 
the  mxans  for  tiie  end.  The  Church  is  interested  in 
the  social  question  only  in  so  far  as  it  is  related  to  souls, 
that  is,  in  so  far  as  it  involves  questions  of  right  and 
wrongj/  She  cannot  be  indifferent  to  those  aspects  of 
the  social  problem  which  involve  relations  of  charity 
and  justice.  To  these  issues  she  never  has  been  in- 
different. Her  insistence  upon  the  supreme  principles 
of  individual  sacredness,  the  essential  equality  of  all 
individuals,  and  the  right  use  of  wealth,  brought  about 
the  abolition  of  slavery,  the  medieval  system  of  dual 
ownership  of  land,  the  guild  organization  of  industry 
in  the  towns,  and  the  establishment  of  democracy  as 
against  the  absolute  rule  of  kings,  lords,  and  tyrants 
of  every  description.  These  doctrines  have  lost  none 
of  their  efficacy  or  appropriateness.  All  that  is  neces- 
sary is  that  they  be  applied  specifically  and  in  detail 
to  the  new  conditions. 

Under  the  head  of  charity  the  Church  teaches  that 
all  men  are  brothers,  that  the  Golden  Rule  has  not 
become  antiquated,  and  that  a  man's  superfluous  goods 
belong  to  his  needy  fellows.  The  last  doctrine  is  far- 
reaching,  but  is  today  more  honored  in  the  breach  than 
in  the  observance,  even  by  the  majority  of  those  who 
call  themselves  good  Catholics.  On  behalf  of  the  virtue 
of  justice,  the  Church  demands  that  workmen  perform 
their  tasks  faithfully  and  abstain  from  acts  of  violence 
against  persons  and  propert}^;  that  employers  should 
pay  at  least  living  wages  to  all  their  employes  and 
refrain  from  overtaxing  age,  sex,  and  strength;  and  that 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  53 

capitalists  should  discontinue  the  practice  of  new  and 
insidious  forms  of  usury.  All  tliis  is  explicitly  con- 
tained in  Pope  Leo's  Encyclical  on  the  "condition  of 
labor."  With  him  we  may  well  ask,  "Were  these 
precepts  carefully  obeyed  and  followed,  would  not 
strife  die  out  and  cease.''" 

In  addition  to  her  positive  teaching,  the  Church 
provides  the  most  effective  motives  for  social  action. 
No  motives  of  mere  brotherly  love,  or  naturalistic 
morality,  can  stimulate  so  powerfully  the  individual 
conscience  as  those  drawn  from  the  fatherhood  of  God, 
and  tlie  sanction  of  heaven  and  hell.  No  mere  external 
agencies,  no  mere  social  machinery,  whether  in  a 
private  or  public  organization,  will  produce  systematic 
and  lasting  reform  without  a  quickening  of  the  indi- 
vidual conscience.  And  tliis  must  be  the  work  of 
religion. 

Now  we  are  obliged  to  admit  that,  while  the  true 
and  effective  motives  of  social  duties  are  fairly  well 
tauglit  in  the  Church,  her  positive  teaching  with  regard 
to  charity  and  justice  has  not  yet  been  applied  with 
sufficient  definitiveness  and  thoroughness  to  the  in- 
dustrial conditions  of  our  time  and  country.  Is  it 
right  that  Catholics  should  spend  so  much  money  on 
themselves  as  do  the  very  rich,  and,  indeed,  almost 
all  classes  except  the  very  poor.'  Are  Catholic  em- 
ployers who  fail  to  pay  living  wages,  and  who  oppress 
their  work-people  in  other  ways,  sufficiently  instructed 
concerning  these  relations  and  sufficiently  corrected 
when  they  fail  in  these  duties?    Are  the  methods  of: 


54  The  Church  and  Socialism 

getting  money  through  monopoly,  which  are  con- 
demned by  the  general  conscience  of  the  American 
people,  morally  right  or  morally  wrong?  What  are  we 
to  think  of  professing  Catholics  who  do  not  hesitate  to 
make  use  of  these  methods  and  to  profit  by  them? 
These,  and  many  similar  questions,  are  extremely 
practical  and  are  all  moral  questions.  They  are  diffi- 
cult and  they  are  new;  therefore  they  cannot  be  fully 
answered  as  promptly  as  we  should  like  to  see  them 
answered.  Yet  they  must  be  faced,  fully,  frankly, 
and  honestly,  and  we  must  receive  answers  and  solu- 
tions that  will  be  at  once  sound,  and  unequivocal,  and 
comprehensive.  This  aspect  of  social  Catholic  reform 
is  fundamental  and  is  a  necessary  preliminary  to  effec- 
tive work  in  all  the  other  departments  of  social  action. 

If  Catholics  are  to  do  effective  work  in  solving  the 
social  question  and  in  counteracting  revolutionary 
social  theories,  they  must  possess  a  definite  and  con- 
structive program.  Neither  vague  and  edifying  gener- 
alities, nor  mere  opposition  to  socialism,  will  any  longer 
suffice.  The  generalities  are  self-evident,  but  they 
bring  us  nowhere;  opposition  to  socialism  is  a  necessity, 
but  by  itself  it  may  do  us  as  much  harm  as  good. 

The  program  of  principles,  methods,  and  measures 
which  I  have  tried  to  outline  may  claim,  I  think,  to 
be  fairly  comprehensive.  Probably  it  includes  all  the 
reforms  that  we  can  hope  to  see  realized  within  the  next 
quarter  of  a  century.  Indeed,  some  will  be  inclined 
to  call  it  "advanced."  That  is  a  question  of  personial 
appreciation  and  viewpoint.     The  epithets  * '  advanced ' ' 


Principles  of  Social  Reform  55 

and  "retrograde,"  "radical"  and  "conservative,"  "pro- 
gressive" and  "reactionary,"  are  all  relative.  Most  of 
the  time  they  do  service  as  mere  catchwords  in  the 
mouths  of  persons  who  are  too  indolent  to  exercise  the 
thinking  faculty.  Social  principles  and  proposals  can- 
not be  permanently  justified  or  condemned  because  of 
their  factitious  connection  with  a  catchword.  Their 
only  enduring  and  rational  test  is  the  test  of  truth. 
And  the  standards  of  social  triith  are  to  be  sought  in 
the  teaching  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  precepts  of 
the  moral  law,  the  conclusions  of  economic  authority, 
and  the  verdict  of  experience.  Judged  by  these 
standards,  the  program  that  I  have  all  too  briefly  and 
feebly  put  forth  in  these  pages  will,  in  its  essentials  at 
least,  prove  to  be  constructive,  efficient,  and  im- 
pregnable. 

No  loyal  Catholic,  priest  or  layman,  is  permitted  to 
be  indifferent  toward  the  movement  for  Catholic  social 
reform.  In  the  first  place,  we  are  all  commanded  to 
Interest  ourselves  in  the  work  by  the  supreme  authority 
at  Rome,  Pope  Leo  XIII  enjoined  every  minister  of 
religion  to  "throw  into  the  conflict  all  the  energy  of  his 
mind,  and  all  the  strength  of  his  endurance";  and 
reminded  the  laity  that  they  were  "not  free  to  choose 
whether  they  will  take  up  the  cause  of  the  poor  or  not; 
it  is  a  matter  of  simple  duty."  These  mandates  have 
been  more  than  once  reaffirmed  and  emphasized  by 
Pius  X.  In  the  second  place,  Catholic  social  reform  is 
necessary  in  the  interests  of  morality  and  for  the  glory 
of  God;  without  it  millions  of  men,  women,  and  children, 


56  The  Church  and  Socialism 

for  whom  Christ  died,  will  continue  to  be  deprived  of  the 
material  means  of  living  decently  and  serving  God 
properly.  Finally,  unless  Catholics  enter  actively  and 
intelligently  upon  this  work  of  social  reform,  large  sec- 
tions of  our  wage-earning  co-religionists  will  be  drawn 
from  their  Catholic  allegiance  into  Socialism  or  other 
revolutionary  and  anti-Christian  organizations.  That 
this  is  an  impending  and  an  imminent  danger,  no  one 
who  is  moderately  acquainted  with  our  working  popu- 
lation would  think  of  attempting  to  deny.  Despite  the 
comforting  assurances  of  complacent  optimists,  there 
exist  today  in  our  American  industrial  society  forces 
and  tendencies  which,  if  unchecked  by  intelligent  and 
sympathetic  Catholic  action,  will  lead  to  such  a  defec- 
tion from  the  Church  among  the  masses  as  has  taken 
place  in  raoie  than  one  country  in  Continental  Europe. 
Given  essentially  similar  conditions,  history  is  likely 
to  repeat  itself. 

Any  one  of  the  three  considerations  which  I  have 
just  set  forth  ought  to  be  sufficient  to  rouse  sluggish 
Catholics  to  a  sense  of  their  social  obligations;  taken 
together  they  leave  the  socially  indifferent  Catholic 
without  a  voslige  of  excuse  for  his  inactivity. 


Ill 

A  LIVING  WAGE 

I 

"A  Living  Wage"  forms  the  title  of  a  chapter  in 
Professor  William  Smart's  "Studies  in  Economics." 
This  chapter  was  written  in  Scotland,  November,  1893. 
In  its  opening  sentences  we  are  told:  "The  last  few 
weeks  have  seen  the  birth  of  a  new  and  attractive 
catchM^ord.  Before  it  has  even  been  defined,  it  is 
already  put  forward  as  arguing  a  claim.  .  .  .  The  ex- 
pression 'living  wage'  seems  to  give  a  reason  and  a 
basis  for  a  certain  amount  of  wage.  It  has,  accordingly, 
found  its  way  into  every-day  language,  and  we  may 
expect  soon  to  find  that  the  conception  which  it  ex- 
presses has  taken  its  place  among  the  convictions  of 
many." 

In  all  probability,  these  sentences  describe  the  origin 
of  the  phrase,  "living  wage."  But  the  idea  that  it 
expresses  goes  back  much  farther  than  the  sum.mer  of 
1893.  Because  the  idea  is  so  much  older  than  the 
expression,  it  has  "taken  its  place  among  the  con- 
victions of  many"  to  a  far  greater  extent  and  with 
much  more  rapidity  than  Professor  Smart  expected 
when  he  wrote  the  words  just  quoted.  Because  the 
expression  neatly  and  concretely  sets  forth  the  idea, 
it  likewise  has  obtained  a  currency  that  the  professor 
never  anticipated.  Both  the  idea  and  the  expression 
owe  their  vogue  and  their  popularity  to  the  fact  that 
they  represent  a  fundmental  principle  of  justice. 

57 


58  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Although  the  idea  of  a  living  wage  goes  back  at 
least  to  tl.e  early  Middle  Ages,  it  received  its  first 
systematic  and  authoritative  expression  in  the  En- 
cyclical of  Pope  Leo  XIII,  "On  the  Condition  of 
Labor."  This  was  published  in  May,  1891,  something 
m.ore  than  a  year  before  the  "catchword"  was  first 
heard  in  Great  Britain.  In  that  document  the  great 
pontiff  flatly  rejected  the  prevailing  doctrine  that 
wages  fixed  by  free  consent  were  always  fair  and  just. 
This  theory,  he  said,  leaves  out  of  account  certain  im- 
portant considerations.  It  ignores  the  fundamental 
fact  that  the  laborer  is  morally  bound  to  preserve  his 
life,  and  that  his  only  means  of  fulfilling  this  duty  is 
to  be  found  in  his  wages.  Therefore,  concluded  Pope 
Leo,  "a  workman's  wages  ought  to  be  suSicient  to 
maintain  him  in  reasonable  and  frugal  comfort." 
This  proposition,  he  declared,  is  a  "dictate  of  natural 
justice." 

What  is  "reasonable  comfort?"  Evidently,  it  is 
something  more  than  the  conditions  and  essentials  of 
mere  existence.  To  have  merely  the  means  of  con- 
tinuing to  live  and  to  work  is  not  to  be  in  comfort. 
What  degree  of  comfort  is  reasonable?  To  this 
question  we  could  get  a  hundred  different  answers 
from  as  many  difTerent  persons.  Each  of  the  one 
hundred  might  conceive  reasonable  comfort  as  that 
to  which  he  had  become  accustomed,  or  that  to  which 
he  aspired  because  it  seemed  to  bring  happiness  to 
others.  The  reasonable  comfort  that  the  Pope  had 
in  mind  is  m^erely  the  reasonable  minimum.     It  is 


A  Living  Wage  59 

that  smallest  amount  which  will  satisfy  right  reason. 
One  way  of  fin  ling  o  it  how  muc'i  is  req  li  e  1  by  t  15 
standard  is  to  consult  the  judgment  of  competent  and 
fair-minded  men.  Another  and  more  fundamental 
method  is  to  interpret  reasonable  comfort  in  the  light 
of  man's  nature  and  essential  needs.  These  are  the 
ends  to  which  any  degree  of  welfare  is  but  a  means. 
Man's  nature  and  needs,  therefore,  should  indicate 
the  amount  of  goods  that  constitute  the  minimum 
measure  of  reasonable  comfort. 

Like  every  other  human  being,  the  wage -earner  is  a 
person,  not  a  thing,  nor  a  mere  animal.  Because  he  is  a 
person,  he  has  certain  needs  that  are  not  felt  by  animals, 
and  his  needs  and  his  welfare  have  a  certain  sacredness 
that  does  not  belong  to  any  other  species  of  creatures. 
A  dog  or  a  horse  may  be  used  as  me-e  instrameits  to 
the  welfare  of  man.  They  may  rightfully  be  killed 
when  man  no  longer  wants  them.  Not  so  with  the 
human  person.  He  has  intrinsic  worth  and  dignity. 
He  is  made  in  the  image  and  likeness  of  God.  He  is 
an  end  in  himself.  He  was  not  created  for  the  pleasure, 
or  utility,  or  aggrandizement  of  any  other  human 
being  or  group  of  human  beings.  His  worth  and  his 
place  in  the  unive-se  are  to  be  measured  with  reference 
to  himself,  not  with  reference  to  other  men,  or  to 
institutions,  or  to  states.  He  is  worth  while  for  his 
own  sake. 

What,  then,  are  the  needs  to  which  are  attached  this 
prerogative  of  intrinsic  worth  and  sacredness.'  How 
much  of  the  good  things  of  life  must  a  man  have  in 


60  The  Church  and  Socialism 

order  that  he  may  live  in  a  manner  worthy  of  a  person? 
In  general,  he  must  have  sufBcient  goods  and  op- 
portunities for  the  exercise  of  all  his  faculties  and  the 
development  of  his  personality.  On  tlie  physical  side, 
this  means  food,  clothing  and  housing  adequate  to 
maintain  him  in  health  and  working  efficiency.  If  he 
si  underfed,  or  insufficiently  clothed,  or  improperly 
housed,  he  is  treated  with  even  less  consideration  than 
wise  and  humane  men  extend  to  their  beasts  of  burden. 
Since  the  worker  is  not  merely  an  animal  and  an 
instrument  of  production,  but  an  intellectual  and 
moral  person,  he  requires  the  means  of  exercising  and 
developing  the  faculties  of  his  soul.  Therefore  he 
needs  some  education,  some  facilities  for  reading  and 
study,  the  means  of  practicing  religion,  an  environ- 
ment that  will  not  make  unreasonably  difficult  the 
leading  of  a  moral  life,  and  sufficient  opportunities  of 
social  intercourse  and  recreation  to  maintain  him  in 
efficiency  and  to  give  him  that  degree  of  contentment 
that  is  essential  to  a  healthy  outlook  on  life.  As 
regards  the  future,  the  worker  requires  a  certain 
minimum  amount  of  security  against  sickness,  accident, 
and  old  age.  Finally,  all  these  goods  should  be  avail- 
able to  the  worker,  not  as  a  single  man,  but  as  the  head 
of  a  family;  for  marriage  is  among  the  essential  needs 
of  the  great  majority. 

All  the  foregoing  goods  and  opportunities  are  in- 
cluded in  the  concept  of  reasonable  comfort.  Within 
the  last  few  years,  many  groups  of  persons  have  at- 
tempted to  translate  these  requisites  into  more  con- 


A  Living  Wage  61 

Crete  symbols.  They  have  tried  to  describe  reasonable 
comfort  or  a  decent  livelihood,  in  terms  of  food, 
housing,  insurance,  etc.  Their  statements  and  esti- 
mates have  shown  a  remarkable  measure  of  agreement. 
This  substantial  uniformity  proves  that  "reasonable 
comfort"  is  not  only  a  practical  and  tangible  concep- 
tion, but  one  that  springs  from  the  deepest  intuitions 
of  reason  and  morality. 

We  pass  over  their  specific  statements  concerning 
the  amount  and  kinds  of  food  required,  as  these  are 
too  technical  for  our  present  purpose.  It  is  sufficient 
to  say  that  these  specifications  cover  an  allowance  of 
food  adequate  to  the  perservation  of  health  and  work- 
ing efficiency.  As  regards  clothing,  the  estimates 
include  not  merely  what  is  needed  for  health  and 
efficiency,  but  t'lose  additional  articles  and  changes  of 
raiment  which  are  essential  in  order  that  the  worker  and 
his  family  may,  without  loss  of  self-respect,  attend 
church,  school,  and  participate  in  public  gatherings, 
and  various  forms  of  social  intercourse.  The  provision 
of  apparel  for  tliese  latter  purposes  may  not  be  directly 
necessary  on  the  ground  of  health,  but  it  meets  one  of 
the  fundamental  needs  of  a  human  being.  It  is  among 
the  requirements  of  the  mind  and  the  emotions.  To  deny 
it  to  a  man  is  to  treat  him  as  somewhat  less  than  a  man. 

In  the  matter  of  housing,  the  authorities  agree  that 
the  wage-earner  and  his  family  require  at  least  four  or 
five  rooms,  with  adequate  sunlight,  ventilation,  and 
all  the  elementary  requisites  of  sanitation,  and  in  moral 
and  healthful  surroundings. 


62  The  Chukch  and  Socialism 

The  majority  of  social  students  believe  that  the 
worki.ignian's  v/ife  should  not  be  compelled  to  become 
a  wage -ear iier,  and  that  his  children  s^iould  not  regu- 
larly engage  in  gainful  occupations  before  the  age  of 
sixteen.  If  these  conditions  are  not  realized,  the 
family  is  not  living  in  reasonable  comfort,  and  its 
younger  members  are  deprived  of  reasonable  oppor- 
tunities of  education  and  development. 

All  the  members  of  the  family  should  have  some 
provision  for  recreation,  such  as  an  occasional  trip  to 
the  country  and  visits  to  moving  pictures  or  concerts, 
some  access  to  books  and  periodical  literature,  in  ad- 
dition to  schooling  for  the  children  up  to  the  age  of 
sixteen;  and  of  course  the  means  of  belonging  to  a 
church. 

The  worker  should  have  sufficient  insurance  against 
unemployment,  accidents,  sickness  and  old  age  to 
provide  him.self  and  those  normally  dependent  upon 
him  with  all  the  above  mxcntioned  goods  during  those 
periods  when  he  is  unable  to  make  such  provision  by 
his  labor  and  wages. 

Such  are  the  requisites  of  reasonable  comfort  as 
determined  by  man's  nature  and  needs,  and  as  inter- 
preted by  all  competent  authorities  on  the  subject. 
That  V  e  wage-earner,  as  all  other  persons,  ought  to 
have  this  much  of  the  good  things  of  life  will  not  be 
denied  by  anyone  who  appreciates  tl  e  dignity  and 
intrinsic  worth  of  personality.  The  man  who  would 
assert  that  t-e  worker  and  his  family  m.ay  reasonably 
be  deprived  of  these  things  must  logically  contend  that 


A  Living  Wage  63 

the  worker  may  be  killed  or  deprived  of  his  liberty  for 
the  be  :eSt  of  others.  For  the  right  of  life,  liberty, 
marriage  and  all  the  other  f undame  ital  goods  rests  on 
precisely  the  same  basis  as  the  claim  to  reasonable 
comfort.  That  basis  is  the  inherent  sacredness  of 
personality.  This  sacredness  is  outraged,  not  only 
when  the  person  is  killed,  crippled,  or  imprisoned,  but 
also  when  he  is  prevented  from  exercising  and  develop- 
ing his  faculties  to  a  reasonable  degree. 

In  the  next  paper  we  shall  consider  the  moral  prin- 
ciples which  are  at  the  basis  of  the  claim  to  a  living 
wage. 

II 

In  the  first  article  of  this  series  we  saw  the  meaning 
of  "reasonable  comfort,"  as  determnned  by  man's 
nature  and  needs,  and  estimated  by  avithoritative 
social  students.  Pope  Leo  XIII  declared  that  the 
workman's  claim  to  a  wage  that  provides  reasonable 
comfort  is  a  "dictate  of  natural  justice."  That  is 
to  say,  a  living  wage  and  reasonable  comfort  are  not 
merely  desirable  advantages,  goods  which  we  should 
all  like  to  see  possessed  by  the  working  m.an  and  his 
family,  things  necessary  for  reasonable  life,  but  they 
are  required  by  the  principles  of  justice;  they  belong 
to  him  as  a  right.  To  a  large  proportion  of  em.ployers, 
and  to  many  other  persons,  this  is  still  "a  hard  saying." 
Ho.v  can  it  be  justified? 

Pope  Leo  could  not  present  an  extended  justification 
in  a  document  that  dealt  with  the  whole  field  of  in- 


64  The  Church  and  Socialism 

dustrial  relations.  Hence  he  contented  himself  with 
laying  down  the  general  principle  tiiat  a  living  wage  and 
a  condition  of  reasonable  comfort  are  required  in  order 
that  the  wage  earner  may  fulfill  his  duties  of  life  and 
self-development.  Obligations  cannot  be  discharged 
without  the  necessary  means;  for  the  laborer,  wages  are 
the  only  means. 

The  latest  ethical  defence  of  the  right  to  a  living 
wage  is  that  presented  by  the  Rev.  Dr.  Cronin,  in  the  sec- 
ond volume  of  his  "Science  of  Ethics."  It  is,  in  brief, 
that  a  wage  which  is  not  sufBcient  to  provide  reasonable 
comfort  is  not  the  just  equivalent  of  the  wage-earner's 
labor.  Why.'*  Because  the  worker's  energy  or  labor 
is  the  one  means  that  God  has  given  him  to  provide 
the  essentials  of  reasonable  life  and  comfort.  When 
the  employer  appropriates  to  his  own  uses  this  energy, 
he  is  bound  in  strict  justice  to  give  in  exchange  for  it 
that  amount  of  welfare  which  the  laborer's  energy  is 
the  divinely  given  means  of  obtaining.  Other  writers 
give  other  arguments  and  justifications.  Among  the 
Catholic  authorities  the  differences  in  this  matter  are 
differences  of  view-point  rather  than  of  principle. 
The  following  argument  seems  to  be  more  fundamental 
and  thorough  than  some  of  the  others. 

When  we  consider  man's  position  in  relation  to  the 
bounty  of  nature,  we  are  led  to  accept  three  funda- 
mental principles.  The  first  may  be  thus  stated: 
Since  the  earth  was  intended  by  God  for  the  support 
of  all  persons,  all  have  essentially  equal  claims  upon 
it,  and  essentially  equal  rights  of  access  to  its  benefits. 


A  Living  Wage  65 

On  the  one  hand,  God  has  not  declared  that  any  of  His 
children  have  superior  or  exceptional  claims  to  the 
earth.  On  the  other  hand,  all  persons  are  made  in  the 
image  and  likeness  of  God,  composed  of  the  same  kind 
of  body  and  soul,  affected  by  the  same  needs,  and 
destined  for  the  same  end.  Therefore  they  are  all 
equally  important  in  His  sight.  They  are  all  equally 
persons,  endowed  with  intrinsic  worth  and  dignity, 
ends  in  themselves,  not  instruments  to  the  welfare  of 
others.  Hence  they  stand  upon  an  essentially  equal  foot- 
ing with  regard  to  the  animal,  plant,  and  mineral 
bounty  of  the  earth.  This  bounty  is  a  common  gift, 
possession,  heritage.  The  moral  claims  upon  it  held 
by  these  equal  human  persons  are  essentially  equal. 
No  man  can  vindicate  for  himself  a  superior  claim  on 
the  basis  of  anything  that  he  finds  in  himself,  in  na- 
ture or  in  the  designs  of  nature's  God. 

Nevertheless,  this  equal  riglit  of  access  to  the  earth 
is  not  absolute.  It  is  conditioned  upon  labor,  upon  the 
expenditure  of  useful  and  fruitful  energy.  As  a  rule, 
the  good  things  of  the  earth  are  obtained  in  adequate 
form  and  quantity  only  at  the  cost  of  considerable 
exertion.  And  this  exertion  is  for  the  most  part  irk- 
some, of  such  a  nature  that  men  will  not  perform  it 
except  under  the  compulsion  of  some  less  agreeable 
alternative.  The  labor  to  which  the  earth  yields  up 
her  treasures  is  not  put  forth  spontaneously  and 
automatically.  Therefore,  the  equal  and  inherent 
right  of  men  to  possess  the  earth  and  utilize  its  benefits 
becomes  actually  valid  only  when  they  are  willing  to 


66  The  Church  and  Socialism 

expend  productive  energy  and  labor.  This  is  the 
second  fundamental  principle. 

Obviously  we  are  speaking  here  of  the  original  rights 
of  men  to  the  earth,  not  of  those  rights  which  tl:ey  have 
acquired  through  tbe  possession  of  private  property. 
The  rights  in  question  are  those  which  inhere  in  all 
men,  whether  or  not  they  are  private  owners. 

From  the  two  principles  of  equal  right  of  access  to 
the  earth,  and  universal  obligation  to  perform  a  reason- 
able amount  of  useful  labor,  follows  a  third  fundamental 
principle.  It  is  that  men  who  at  any  time  or  in  any  way 
control  the  resources  of  the  earth  are  morally  bound 
to  permit  others  to  have  access  thereto  on  reasonable 
terms.  Men  who  are  willing  to  work  must  be  enabled 
to  make  real  and  actual  their  original  and  equal  right 
of  access  to  the  common  bounty  of  nature.  For  the 
right  to  subsist  from  the  earth  implies  the  right  ac- 
tually to  participate  in  its  benefits  on  reasonable 
conditions  and  through  reasonable  arrangements. 
Otherwise  the  former  right  is  a  delusion.  To  refuse 
any  man  reasonable  facilities  to  exercise  his  basic  right 
of  living  from  the  comm.on  bounty  by  his  labor  is  to 
treat  this  right  as  non-existent.  Such  conduct  by  the 
men  who  are  in  possession  implies  a  belief  that  their 
rights  to  the  gifts  of  God  are  inherently  superior  to 
the  right  of  the  person  whom  they  exclude.  This 
position  is  utterly  untenable.  It  is  on  exactly  the  same 
basis  as  would  be  the  claim  of  a  strong  man  to  deprive 
a  weak  one  of  liberty.  The  right  to  freedom  of  move- 
ment is  not  more  certain  nor  more  indestructible  than 


A  Living  Wage  67 

the  right  of  access  on  reasonable  terms  to  the  bounty 
of  the  earth.  Were  a  community  to  imprison  an  inno- 
cent man  it  would  not  violate  his  rights  more  vitally 
than  does  the  proprietor  or  the  corporation  that  de- 
prives him  of  reasonable  access  to  the  resources  of 
nature.  In  both  cases  the  good  that  he  seeks  is  a 
common  gift  of  God. 

This,  then,  is  the  moral  basis  underlying  the  laborer's 
right  to  a  living  wage.  Like  all  other  men,  he  has  an 
indestructible  right  of  access  to  the  goods  of  the  earth 
on  reasonable  terms.  Obviously,  the  conditional 
clause,  "on  reasonable  terms,"  is  of  very  great  im- 
portance. Neither  the  laborer  nor  anyone  else  has  a 
right  of  direct  and  unconditional  access  to  those  por- 
tions of  the  earth  that  have  rightly  become  the  property 
of  others.  Such  a  claim  would  be  the  height  of  un- 
reason. The  laborer's  right  to  participate  in  the 
common  heritage  must  be  actualized  in  such  a  way  as 
not  to  interfere  with  the  equally  valid  rights  of  others. 
The  laborer's  right  must  be  satisfied  with  due  regard 
to  existing  acquired  rights  and  the  existing  form  of 
industrial  organization. 

In  the  following  paper  we  shall  show  how  this  right 
becomes  the  right  to  a  living  wage  from  the  employer. 

Ill 

In  our  first  paper  we  found  that  a  life  of  reasonable 
comfort  implies  at  least  that  amount  of  material, 
intellectual,  m.oral,  spiritual,  and  other  goods,  which 
are  becoming  to,  worthy  of,  a  human  person.     In  the 


68  The  Church  and  Socialism 

second  paper  we  saw  that  the  person's  need  for  these 
things  gives  him  certain  moral  claims  upon  the  common 
bounty  of  nature.  These  claims  we  summed  up  in 
the  principle  that  every  person  has  a  right  of  access 
to  the  goods  of  the  earth  on  reasonable  terms.  Since 
a  right  in  one  person  implies  a  correlative  obligation 
in  someone  else,  it  follows  that  those  who  are  in  posses- 
sion of  the  earth  or  its  resources  must  so  use  these 
goods  that  every  man  shall  be  able  to  enjoy  his  right 
of  access  without  unreasonable  difficulty. 

From  this  principle  to  the  principle  that  the  laborer 
has  a  right  to  a  living  wage,  the  transition  is  logical 
and  certain.  Pope  Leo  XIII  declared  that  the  laborer's 
right  to  a  living  wage  arises  from  the  fact  that  his  wage 
is  his  only  means  of  livelihood.  Owing  to  the  manner 
in  which  the  goods  of  the  earth  have  been  divided  and 
appropriated  in  the  present  organization  of  industrial 
society,  the  wage-earner  ha^  no  way  of  exercising  his 
original  and  equal  right  of  access  to  the  earth  except 
through  the  sale  of  his  labor  in  return  for  wages.  An 
occasional  worker  might  get  a  livelihood  by  cultivating 
a  piece  of  land,  but  the  cost  is  so  great  that  only  those 
can  defray  it  who  are  already  receiving  more  than 
living  wages.  If  such  an  opportunity  and  alternative 
were  general,  the  living  wage  would  not  be  a  practical 
question.  Men  would  not  hire  themselves  out  for  less 
than  that  amount  when  they  could  obtain  a  decent 
livelihood  by  employing  themselves  on  a  piece  of  land. 
To  assure  a  laborer  that  if  he  does  not  like  to  work 
for  less  than  living  wages,  he  can  fall  back  upon  his 


A  Living  Wage  69 

right  of  access  to  the  earth  by  taking  up  a  piece  of 
land,  is  but  to  mock  him.  Such  access  as  he  has  is 
evidently  not  access  on  reasonable  terms. 

For  the  wage-earner  of  to-day,  therefore,  access  to 
the  resources  of  nature  can  be  had  only  through  wages. 
The  men  who  have  appropriated  the  goods  and  op- 
portunities of  the  earth  have  shut  him  out  from  any 
other  way  of  entering  upon  his  natural  heritage. 
Therefore  they  are  morally  bound  to  use  and  administer 
these  goods  in  such  a  way  that  his  right  shall  not  be 
violated  and  his  access  to  the  resources  of  nature  not 
rendered  unreasonably  difficult.  This  means  that  the 
industrial  community  in  which  he  lives,  and  for  which 
he  labors,  shall  provide  him  with  the  requisites  of  a 
decent  livelihood  in  the  form  of  living  wages.  On 
the  one  hand,  the  worker  has  performed  a  reasonable 
amountof  labor;  on  the  other  hand,  the  industrial  com- 
munity is  the  beneficiary  of  his  services.  In  the  pro- 
duct which  he  has  created  the  community  has  the 
wherewith  to  pay  him  living  wages.  To  refuse  him 
this  amount  of  remuneration  is  surely  to  deprive  him  of 
access  to  the  earth  and  to  a  livelihood  on  reasonable 
terms. 

It  is  assumed  here  that  the  laborer's  product  is 
sufficiently  large  to  provide  this  much  remuneration, 
and  that  the  employer  would  rather  pay  it  than  go 
without  the  laborer's  services.  The  case  in  which  tlie 
product  falls  short  of  this  sufiiciency  will  be  considered 
presently.  If  the  employer  does  not  think  the  laborer 
worth  a  living  wage,  he  has  a  right  to  discharge  him. 


70  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Otherwise  the  employer  would  be  treated  unreasonably. 
But  when  the  employer  regards  the  employe  worth  a 
living  wage,  but  refuses  to  pay  it  merely  because  the 
laborer  is  economically  constrained  to  work  for  less, 
he  is  surely  treating  the  latter  unreasonably.  He 
is  depriving  the  laborer  of  access  to  the  goods  of  the 
earth  on  reasonable  terms.  In  the  striking  words  of 
Pope  Leo  XIII,  he  is  making  the  laborer  "the  victim 
of  force  and  injustice." 

The  reader  will  have  noticed  that  in  the  last  para- 
graph the  word  "employer"  is  substituted  for  the  word 
"community,"  which  was  used  in  the  paragraph  pre- 
ceding. If  the  community  in  its  corporate  civil  form 
— that  is,  the  state — were  the  direct  beneficiary  of  the 
laborer's  services,  if  it  came  into  direct  possession  of 
the  laborer's  product,  it  would  obviously  be  charged 
with  the  duty  of  paying  him  a  living  wage.  In  our 
present  industrial  organization,  however,  the  state 
permits  the  employer  to  obtain  the  product  and  im- 
poses upon  him  the  duty  of  wage  paying.  Therefore 
he  is  the  person  who  is  obliged  to  perform  this  duty 
adequately,  that  is,  in  the  form  of  living  wages.  If 
he  fails  to  do  so,  he  abuses  his  social  and  industrial 
functions;  he  uses  his  control  over  the  goods  of  the 
earth  in  such  a  way  as  to  deprive  the  laborer  of  access 
thereto  on  reasonable  terms. 

What  if  the  employer  cannot  pay  living  wages.'' 
Space  limitations  will  not  permit  us  to  discuss  the  very 
interesting  ethical  question  whether  such  an  employer 
is  morally  obliged  to  go  out  of  business.    The  employer 


A  Living  Wage  71 

has  a  right  to  take  from  the  product  the  equivalent  of 
a  decent  Hvehhood  for  himself  and  his  family,  even 
though  the  remainder  will  not  provide  full  living  wages 
for  all  his  employes.  For  his  claim  to  a  decent  liveli- 
hood is  as  good  as  theirs,  and  in  a  conflict  of  equal 
claims  a  man  is  justified  in  preferring  himself  to  his 
neighbors.  When,  however,  the  employer  has  already 
obtained  a  decent  livelihood,  he  has  no  right  to  take 
from  the  product  one  cent  more  until  he  has  given  all 
his  employees  the  full  measure  of  living  wages.  In  the 
first  place,  the  right  to  take  interest  in  any  circum- 
stances on  invested  capital  is  only  presumptive  and 
probable,  not  certain.  In  the  second  place,  the  right 
of  the  laborers  to  get  from  the  joint  product  the  means 
of  satisfying  their  essential  and  fundamental  needs  is 
morally  superior  to  the  right  of  the  employer  to  the 
means  of  indulging  in  luxurious  living  or  of  making  new 
investments.  To  deny  this  proposition  is  to  assert  that 
the  claims  of  the  laborers  upon  the  common  bounty  of 
nature  are  morally  inferior  to  those  of  the  employer, 
and  that  they  are  but  instruments  to  his  welfare,  not 
morally  equal  and  independent  persons. 

One  can  easily  imagine  some  employer  exclaiming 
that  a  right  of  access  to  the  resources  of  nature  does  not 
mean  the  right  to  take  as  much  as  the  equivalent  of  a 
living  wage.  The  objection  ignores  the  truth  that  the 
access  should  be  "on  reasonable  terms."  Surely  this 
phrase  implies  that  the  access  and  the  wage  should 
provide  at  least  a  decent  livelihood.  The  employer 
who  thinks  that  he  may  rightfully  pay  the  lowest 


72  The  Church  and  Socialism 

wage  that  the  laborer  can  be  forced  to  accept  forgets 
that  he  himself  is  only  a  steward  of  the  gifts  of  God. 
What  he  calls  his  product  is  his,  not  to  use  as  he  pleases, 
but  to  administer  with  due  regard  to  the  natural  rights 
of  his  employes. 

We  have  made  no  formal  defense  of  the  proposition 
that  the  just  living  wage  for  an  adult  male  is  one  that 
will  support  decently  his  wife  and  children  as  well  as 
himself.  We  have  assumed  that  anyone  who  recognizes 
the  claim  of  the  laborer  to  develop  his  personality  to  a 
reasonable  degree  will  take  for  granted  that  those 
advantages  are  possible  only  when  the  father's  wage  is 
adequate  to  decent  family  maintenance. 

In  the  next  and  last  paper  we  shall  discuss  the  money 
measure  of  a  living  wage  and  the  methods  of  bringing 
it  about. 

IV 

Up  to  the  present  we  have  given  no  more  specific 
definition  of  a  living  wage  than  it  is  the  equivalent  of  a 
decent  livelihood,  or  a  sum  sufiicient  to  maintain  the 
worker  and  his  family  in  conditions  of  reasonable 
comfort.  The  attempt  to  define  it  in  terms  of  money 
is  beset  with  many  difficulties.  Some  housekeepers  are 
much  better  managers  than  others  in  making  purchases 
and  in  utilizing  them;  the  number  and  quantity  of 
concrete  goods  that  suffice  for  decent  living  conditions, 
for  example,  in  the  matters  of  recreation  and  non- 
material  things,  do  not  easily  submit  to  exact  measure- 
ment; the  variation  in  the  cost  of  commodities  from 
city  to  city  and  from  section  to  section  renders  any 


A  Living  Wage  73 

single  estimate  inadequate;  and,  finally,  the  recent 
extraordinary  rise  in  prices,  culminating  in  the  present 
abnormal  cost  of  living,  has  made  almost  all  previous 
estimates  antiquated. 

Nevertheless,  the  difEculties  are  not  insurmountable. 
They  can  be  overcome  sufficiently  to  yield  approximate 
estimates  that  will  be  of  great  practical  value.  That 
is  all  that  we  require  in  a  matter  of  this  kind.  We 
are  dealing  with  the  realm  of  moral  approximations, 
not  with  the  province  of  exact  science.  While  the  cost 
of  living  of  a  workingman's  family  varies  indefinitely 
on  account  of  the  varying  proficiency  of  the  housewife, 
we  have  to  consider  only  the  average  level  of  domestic 
economy  and  efficiency.  TJiis  average  is  ascertainable 
quite  as  definitely  as  a  hundred  other  important  social 
facts.  The  goods  that  are  required  to  provide  a  mini- 
mum decent  level  of  existence  can  be  estimated  with 
sufficient  accuracy  to  safeguard  the  welfare  of  the 
laborer  and  his  family.  The  variation  of  prices  over 
space  and  time  can  be  dealt  with  by  making  the  esti- 
mates of  a  living  wage  apply  only  to  specific  places 
and  specific  dates. 

Within  recent  years  we  have  been  provided  with 
many  such  estimates.  For  example,  the  New  York 
Bureau  of  Standards  concluded  in  1915  that  the  mini- 
mum cost  of  living  for  a  family  of  five  was  a  little  less 
than  $850  annually.  In  the  same  year  a  commission 
of  members  of  the  legislature  gave  an  estimate  of  about 
$875  for  the  same  city  and  about  $100  less  for  Buffalo. 

In  the  summer  of  1918  the  experts   of  the  National 


74  The  Church  and  Socialism 

War  Labor  Board  found  that  the  lowest  annual  amount 
upon  which  a  man  and  wife  and  three  children  could 
be  maintained  decently  was  $1,386.  The  cost  of  living 
is  probably  as  high  today  (September,  1919)  as  it  was 
in  July,  1918. 

Four  methods  are  conceivable  by  which  a  living 
wage  might  become  universal.  The  first  is  the  auto- 
matic operation  of  economic  forces.  Some  twenty  or 
twenty-five  years  ago  this  theory  enjoyed  considerable 
favor  among  economists.  It  took  substantially  this 
form:  Capital  is  increasing  much  faster  than  labor; 
therefore,  its  demand  for  labor  is  increasing  relatively 
to  the  supply;  therefore,  the  remuneration  of  labor  will 
necessarily  increase.  The  fatal  flaw  in  this  argument 
is  its  neglect  of  the  fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the 
new  capital  takes  the  place  of  labor,  thereby  reducing 
instead  of  enhancing  the  demand  for  laborers.  Ma- 
chines are  constantly  made  to  do  the  work  of  men,  and 
so  far  as  we  can  see,  the  process  will  go  on  indefinitely. 
The  remuneration  of  underpaid  labor  measured  by  its 
purcha^ng  capacity  has  decreased  rather  than  in- 
creased during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century.  No 
economic  forces  are  discernible  that  are  likely  to  cause 
a  contrary  movement  witliiri  the  next  twenty-five 
years. 

The  second  agency  that  might  theoretically  be 
expected  to  raise  the  wages  of  the  imderpaid  is  the 
benevolence  of  employers.  Only  visionaries  put  any 
faith  in  this  method.  In  so  far  as  experience  is  a 
guide,  it  warns  us  that  only  an  insignificant  minority 


A  Living  Wage  75 

of  employers  will  ever  voluntarily  increase  the  re- 
muneration of  employes  who  are  getting  less  than 
living  wages.  Were  the  number  of  those  disposed  to 
do  so  multiplied  indefinitely,  they  would  not  be  able 
to  carry  out  their  lofty  design.  Owing  to  the  force 
and  keenness  of  competition,  the  great  majority  of 
employers  must  conform  to  the  wage  standards  fixed 
by  their  most  selfish  competitors.  A  benevolent 
majority  might,  indeed,  raise  wage  rates  to  the  level 
of  decency  by  combining  for  that  purpose.  Our 
readers  would  not  thank  us  for  inviting  them  to  con- 
sider seriously  such  a  fantastic  hypothesis. 

The  third  conceivable  method  is  that  of  organiza- 
tion by  the  laborers  themselves.  While  labor  unions 
have  done  much,  very  much,  to  increase  wages  within 
the  last  forty  years,  their  influence  in  this  field  has  been 
mainly  restricted  to  the  skilled  trades.  The  propor- 
tion of  unskilled  and  underpaid  labor  enrolled  in  the 
unions  has  always  been  very  small,  and  it  shows  very 
little  tendency  to  increase.  Effective  organization 
requires  time,  patience  and  considerable  financial 
resources,  the  very  things  which  underpaid  labor 
lacks.  Not  within  a  generation  would  organization 
be  able  to  obtain  living  wages  for  more  than  a  min- 
ority of  those  who  are  below  that  level. 

The  one  device  that  gives  promise  of  making  the 
living  wage  universal  is  a  minimum  fixed  by  law.  This 
means  that  the  public  authorities,  state  or  federal,  or 
both,  should  enact  legislation  forbidding  any  employer 
to  pay  less  than  the  equivalent  of  a  decent  livelihood. 


IV 
THE  LEGAL  MINIMUM  WAGE 

Previous  to  the  rises  in  wages  and  prices  which 
began  in  1915,  the  majority  of  laborers  in  the  United 
States  were  receiving  less  than  living  wages.  Since 
that  date  the  increase  in  prices  seem  to  have  been, 
on  the  whole,  as  great  as  the  increase  in  wages. 
Therefore  it  is  probable  that  the  majority  of  wage- 
earners  are  still  getting  less  than  the  equivalent  of  a 
decent  livelihood. 

This  situation  is  at  once  a  grave  reproach  to  our 
Christian  civilization  and  a  grave  menace  to  the 
national  welfare.  It  is  a  grave  reproach  to  Christian 
civilization  because  every  one  of  tliose  persons  who  is 
forced  to  live  below  the  normal  standard  is  a  human 
being  possessed  of  intrinsic  worth  and  sacredness, 
having  an  absolute  and  imperishable  value,  all  of 
which,  as  the  German  political  writer  Gierke  tells  us, 
was,  in  opposition  to  the  theory  of  antiquity,  revealed 
by  Christianity.  The  most  insignificant  child,  the 
most  degraded  and  exploited  v/orker,  is  equal  in  moral 
importance  and  in  the  eyes  of  God  to  the  greatest 
statesman  or  the  most  efiicient  captain  of  industry. 
Because  of  his  personality  the  worker  has  an  equal 
right  with  the  capitalist  to  at  least  the  elementary 
requisites  of  reasonable  life  and  reasonable  development 
of  personality.  When,  through  no  fault  of  his  own, 
the  wage  of  the  worker  is  inadequate  to  this  end,  his 
76 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  77 

personal  dignity  is  outraged  and  his  indestructible 
rights  violated.  For  he  has  an  indestructible  right, 
either  against  his  employer  or  against  society,  to  the 
minimum  conditions  of  a  decent  livelihood.  To  deny 
this  is  to  assume  that  men  are  not  equal  as  persons, 
and  that  some  human  beings  may  la-w-fully  be  used  as 
mere  instruments  to  the  welfare  of  others;  or  that  God 
did  not  intend  the  resources  and  opportunities  of  the 
earth  to  be  available  in  a  reasonable  degree  for  all  His 
children.  Against  this  assumption  the  principles  of 
natural  morality  and  of  democracy,  no  less  than  the 
teaching  of  Christianity,  utter  an  emphatic  protest. 
Any  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  this  protest  by  ap- 
pealing to  considerations  of  industrial  prosperity  or 
social  utility  will  lack  logical  and  moral  validity;  for 
the  exploitation  of  one  section  of  the  community  for  a 
so-called  social  end  means  in  the  concrete  the  sub- 
ordination of  one  groiip  of  persons  to  another,  albeit 
larger,  group  of  persons.  It  means  that  men  are  to 
be  treated  as  essentially  unequal.  If  it  is  to  be  de- 
fended at  all,  the  defense  must  be  based  frankly  upon 
force,  physical  and  intellectual,  and  not  upon  moral 
grounds. 

This  is  the  individual  and  the  moral  side  of  the 
problem,  and  it  would  seem  to  be  logically  and  funda- 
mentally more  important  than  the  social  side.  While 
society  is  something  more  than  the  sum  of  its  individual 
members,  apart  from  these  it  is  a  mere  abstraction; 
while  it  is  in  a  very  real  sense  an  organism,  unlike  the 
physical  organism,  it  exists  for  the  sake  of  its  constituent 


78  The  Church  and  Socialism 

elements;  while  its  immediate  and  formal  end  is  the 
common  good,  its  ultimate  and  concrete  object  is  the 
good  of  all  its  component  individuals.  Nevertheless 
the  welfare  of  society  can  and  ought  to  be  considered, 
in  itself,  as  something  immediately  and  formally  dif- 
ferent from  the  welfare  of  its  members  or  any  particular 
group  of  them.  In  the  long  run,  however,  social  and 
individual  welfare  are  interdependent,  fostered  by  the 
same  means  and  hindered  by  the  same  obstacles. 
The  injury  done  to  social  welfare  by  insufficient  wages 
and  subnormal  planes  of  living  is  quite  as  certain, 
though  not  always  quite  as  obvious,  as  their  evil  effects 
upon  the  individual  immediately  concerned. 

The  social  injury  has  been  strikingly  presented  by 
Mr.  and  Mrs.  Webb  through  the  illustration  of  para- 
sitism. Those  industries  which  do  not  pay  wages 
sufficient  for  the  physical  efficiency  and  the  repro- 
duction of  their  workers  are  called  parasitic  trades 
because  they  draw  a  part  of  their  productive  energy 
from  the  general  stock  of  the  nation,  instead  of  from 
within  themselves.  We  may  distinguish  two  forms  of 
industrial  parasitism,  the  mild  and  the  extreme.  In 
the  former  the  workers,  or  some  of  them,  are  partly 
supported  by  their  husbands,  brothers,  fathers,  or 
other  relatives,  and  thus  are  enabled  to  live  at  or  near 
the  normal  standard.  These  are  for  the  most  part 
women  workers  and  child  workers.  From  the  view- 
point of  national  welfare  this  mild  parasitism  is  an 
evil  only  indirectly,  inasmuch  as  it  gives  to  the  indus- 
tries in  which  it  exists  an  unfair  advantage  over  com- 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  79 

peting  industries  which  pay  living  wages,  and  thus 
continually  attracts  capital  and  labor  from  the  latter 
to  the  former.  The  subsidizing  of  the  workers  has, 
therefore,  a  very  important  influence  in  extending  the 
area  of  parasitism,  both  mild  and  extreme.  In  the 
extreme  form  of  parasitism  the  underpaid  workers  do 
not  receive  from  other  sources  sufficient  assistance  to 
maintain  health,  industrial  efficiency,  and  the  condi- 
tions of  family  life.  The  chief  consequences  of  this 
situation  are:  the  young  worker^  who  might  have 
become  more  productive  through  training  are  deprived 
of  the  opportunity;  women  workers  are  in  great  numbers 
rendered  unfit  for  the  burdens  of  motherhood;  the 
children  who  are  born  into  the  families  of  these  ex- 
ploited classes  are  denied  the  conditions  of  healthy 
moral  and  physical  development,  and  grow  up  even 
less  efficient  than  their  parents;  forced  to  live  below 
the  normal  level,  the  workers  are  unable  to  turn  out  a 
normal  amount  of  product  during  the  time  they  are 
actually  at  work;  their  total  working  time  is  shortened 
by  an  abnormal  amount  of  sickness  and  premature 
death.  These  facts  represent  the  industrial  loss  to  the 
community.  In  addition,  there  is  a  direct  financial 
loss,  owing  to  the  large  outlay  for  private  and  public 
relief  to  these  workers  in  times  of  sickness,  unemploy- 
ment, and  old  age,  and  a  considerable  increase  in  the 
expenditure  on  account  of  crime  that  can  be  directly 
traced  to  the  subnormal  conditions  in  which  these 
people  are  compelled  to  live. 

Evidently  the  national  losses  that  we  are  considering 


80  The  Church  and  Socialism 

are  not  offset  by  the  supposed  fact  that  the  exploited 
workers  turn  out  cheaper  goods.  We  have  heard  a  great 
deal  lately  about  the  conservation  of  natural  resources 
and  the  wasteful  exploitation  of  the  soil.  We  easily 
realize  that  the  cost  of  restoring  our  agricultural  land 
to  its  normal  productivity  will  be  much  greater  than 
would  have  been  the  cost  of  preventing  its  deteriora- 
tion, and  that  the  average  level  of  prices  of  agricultural 
products  will  in  the  long  run  be  considerably  higher 
than  it  would  have  been  had  the  farmers  adopted  the 
method  of  prevention.  The  early  saving  in  prices  will 
not  compensate  for  the  later  loss  arising  from  deteriora- 
tion of  the  soil.  Neither  will  the  assumed  saving  in 
the  prices  of  the  goods  produced  by  the  exploited 
workers  equal  the  loss  due  to  lower  industrial  efficiency, 
sickness,  poverty  and  crime.  If  the  underpaid  workers 
were  able  to  produce  a  normal  amount  of  product 
annually  during  their  shorter  working  lives,  and  if 
they  were  then  so  considerate  as  to  disappear  suddenly, 
leaving  no  burden  of  sickness  or  funeral  expenses  to 
the  community,  the  process  of  exploitation  might  be 
socially  profitable  and  expedient.  "Might  be,"  for 
the  result  is  by  no  means  certain.  But  the  workers 
do  not  turn  out  a  normal  amount  of  product  during 
their  working  years,  and  they  do  create  abnormal 
burdens  for  the  community.  By  expediency  as  well 
as  by  morality  the  parasitic  industry  stands  con- 
demned. There  may  be  exceptional  industries  that 
are  deserving  of  a  temporary  subsid3%  but  this  should 
come  from  the  state  in  the  form  of  a  direct  bonus,  and 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  81 

not  in  the  form  of  human  exploitation.  As  a  general 
rule,  an  industry  that  is  not  self-supporting,  that 
cannot  pay  living  wages  to  all  its  employes,  has  no 
valid  reason  for  existing.  If  its  products  are  not  in 
sufficient  demand  to  command  prices  adequate  to  this 
end,  they  ought  not  to  be  produced. 

How,  then,  are  the  millions  of  American  workers  who 
are  unable  to  support  a  normal  standard  of  living  to 
be  brought  up  to  that  standard?  Not  by  the  autom.atic 
operation  of  blind  economic  forces;  for  bitter  experi- 
ence has  compelled  us  to  reject  the  complacent  as- 
sumptions of  the  theory  of  "economic  harmonies." 
We  have  learned  that  competition,  if  left  to  itself, 
invariably  forces  wages  downward  instead  of  upward. 
Even  the  late  Francis  A.  Walker  wrote  some  thirty- 
five  years  ago:  "There  is  therefore  no  virtue  at  all,  no 
tendency  even,  in  strictly  industrial  forces  or  relations 
to  make  good  that  great  loss"  ("The  Wages  Ques- 
tion," p.  83).  This  was  written  in  reply  to  Professor 
Perry's  contention  that  competition  among  capitalists 
would  inevitably  and  soon  enable  an  oppressed  group 
of  laborers  to  recover  the  ground  that  they  had  lost. 
About  fifteen  years  later  Walker  applied  the  same 
thought  to  the  laboring  classes  generally:  "Nothing, 
economically  speaking,  can  save  industrial  society 
from  progressive  degradation  except  the  spirit  and  the 
power  in  the  working  classes  to  resist  being  crowded 
down"  ("Elements  of  Political  Economy,"  p.  266). 
In  the  case  of  the  great  majority  of  the  underpaid, 
however,  both  the  spirit  and  the  power  of  adequate 


82  The  Church  and  Socialism 

resistance  are  wanting.  The  low-skilled  workman 
"cannot  organize  because  he  is  so  poor,  so  ignorant,  so 
weak.  Because  he  is  not  organized  he  continues  to  be 
poor,  ignorant,  weak.  Here  is  the  great  dilemma,  of 
which  whoever  shall  have  found  the  key  will  have  done 
much  to  solve  the  problems  of  poverty"  (Hobson, 
"Problems  of  Poverty,"  p.   227). 

There  seems  to  be  but  one  measure  that  gives  any 
promise  of  anything  like  general  efficacy,  namely,  the 
establishment  by  law  of  minimum  rates  of  wages  that 
will  equal  or  approximate  the  normal  standards  of 
living  for  the  different  groups  of  workers.  And  the 
most  effective  method  of  introducing  such  legislation 
seems  to  be  the  minimum  wage  board.  This  is  a  board 
or  committee  composed  in  equal  numbers  of  the  em- 
ployers and  employes  in  a  trade,  together  with  one  or 
more  disinterested  persons.  No  employer  would  be 
prevented  from  paying  more  than  the  rates  fixed  by 
the  board,  but  every  employer  would  be  forbidden 
under  legal  penalties  to  pay  less.  It  would  seem  that 
this  device  of  minimum  wage  boards  is  not  merely 
the  only  one  that  offers  general  relief,  but  would 
naturally  fit  in  with  and  strengthen  all  partial  measures, 
such  as  organization,  good  will  and  enlightened  selfish- 
ness among  the  employers,  restriction  of  immigration 
and  industrial  education.  In  fact,  a  great  part  of  its 
efl5cacy  would  be  derived  from  the  cooperation  of  these 
partial  remedies.  On  the  other  hand,  the  latter  can 
never  become  active,  vital,  or  effective  until  they  are  pre- 
ceded by  the  establishment  of  minimum  wage  boards. 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  83 

The  objections  to  this  proposal  are  numerous,  but 
not  nearly  so  formidable  as  they  appear  to  the  average 
person.  In  the  first  place,  legal  regulation  of  wages 
probably  strikes  most  Americans  as  exceedingly  novel, 
if  not  revolutionary.  Our  national  constitution  was 
drawn  up,  our  political  institutions  organized  and  our 
theories  of  the  sphere  of  legislation  formed  and  de- 
veloped under  the  influence  of  a  philosophy  which 
regarded  men  as  equal  not  only  juridically  and  politi- 
cally, but  as  approximately  equal  physically  and 
intellectually.  The  founders  of  our  government  be- 
lieved that  if  all  class  privileges  and  all  economic 
favoritism  were  abolished,  if  the  legal  restraints  upon 
industry,  which  had  by  that  time  become  antiquated, 
were  repealed,  and  if  complete  freedom  of  contract 
and  of  competition  were  substituted,  every  member  of 
the  community  would  be  able  to  protect  himself  in 
the  struggle  with  his  equals,  and  all  would  be  able  to 
pursue  and  attain  an  ample  degree  of  welfare.  In  a 
word,  our  economic  life  and  its  relations  to  the  state 
were,  from  the  beginning  of  our  national  existence, 
dominated  by  the  th.eory  of  laissez  faire,  the  theory 
that  social  and  individual  welfare  would  be  best  pro- 
moted by  a  policy  under  which  the  state  should  not 
interfere  in  the  affairs  of  industry  except  to  prevent 
fraud,  violence  or  theft.  Before  long,  however,  the 
people  found  that  the  complacent  expectations  built 
upon  this  theory  were  not  realized;  that  the  forces  of 
supply  and  demand  did  not  automatically  promote 
either  equality   or  humanity;   that   in   the  industrial 


84  The  Church  and  Socialism 

world  men  were  unequal  not  only  physically,  as  in 
the  case  of  women  and  children  against  men,  but 
economically,  as  in  the  case  of  the  individual  laborer 
against  the  individual  employer,  and  the  consumer 
against  the  monopolist.  They  realized  that  large 
sections  of  the  population  would  continue  to  suffer 
grave  hardship  and  injustice  unless  protection  were 
olitained  through  legislation.  Hence  the  enactment 
of  laws  regulating  safety  and  sanitation  in  factories, 
laws  fixing  a  minimum  age  for  working  children  and  a 
minimum  working  day  for  both  women  and  children, 
laws  in  restraint  of  monopoly,  and  laws  regulating  the 
services  and  charges  of  public  utility  corporations. 

Why  should  we  hesitate  to  prevent  by  legislation  the 
hardship,  injustice  and  social  waste  due  to  freedom  of 
contract  in  the  matter  of  wages.'*  Instead  of  opposing, 
historical  precedent  favors  the  method.  Down  to  the 
latter  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  wages  in  com- 
mercial and  industrial  employments  had  been  in  most 
cases  fixed  either  by  formal  statutes  and  edicts,  by  the 
ordinances  of  quasi-legal  corporations  such  as  the 
medieval  guilds,  or  by  custom,  which  was  as  effective 
as  law,  and  as  little  subject  to  the  influence  of  free 
contract.  Speaking  generally,  we  may  say  that  it  is 
the  present  sj'stem,  and  not  the  method  of  regulating 
wages  by  law,  that  is  an  innovation.  Nor  does  the 
legal  determination  of  wages  differ  in  principle  from 
the  other  industrial  legislation  that  we  have  already 
enacted.  Every  argument  for  the  latter  can  be  urged 
with  at  least  equal  force  in  favor  of  the  former.     In 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  85 

both  instances  the  law  is  designed  to  protect  one  sec- 
tion of  the  community  against  exploitation  by  another 
section.  A  wage  that  will  enable  the  worker  to  live 
decently  is  as  important  and  as  necessary  as  protection 
to  life,  limb  and  vitality  in  the  factory,  or  the  safe- 
guarding of  his  income  from  the  extortionate  prices 
of  monopoly.  All  legislation  is  ultimately  for  the 
benefit  of  concrete  human  beings,  and  every  law  is 
justified  which,  without  doing  injustice  to  any  class, 
brings  a  wider  measure  of  justice  to  some  class  or 
classes  of  the  community. 

The  second  objection  to  be  considered  is  that  drawn 
from  the  National  Constitution.  Any  attempt  to 
regulate  wages  by  law  would  seem  to  conflict  wdth 
those  constitutional  provisions  against  the  taking  of 
life,  liberty,  or  property  without  due  process  of  law, 
against  any  abridgement  of  the  privileges  or  im- 
munities of  any  class  of  citizens.  Probably  if  these 
provisions  were  interpreted  in  their  widest  and  most 
general  comprehension,  as  the  tendency  was  formerly, 
they  would  be  an  effective  bar  to  all  legislation  regu- 
lating age,  hours,  and  wages,  and  even  sanitation  and 
safety,  in  so  far  as  these  measures  were  designed  for 
the  benefit  of  the  workers  alone.  For  all  such  legisla- 
tion interferes  i\ith  freedom  of  contract  ani  is  in  favor 
of  a  special  class.  Hence  Professor  Adams  observes 
that  the  labor  laws  that  have  been  sustained  by  the 
American  courts  are  "easiest  explained  and  understood 
as  a  collection  of  exceptions  to  these  general  rules" 
("Labor  Problems,"  p.  464).     The  fundamental  and 


86  TUK    ClILRCH    AXD    SOCIALISM 

far-rcacliiiif;  prin?ii)Ie  upon  which  the  courts  have 
pennitted  most  of  these  exceptions  to  and  contraven- 
tions of  the  constitutional  provisions  above  mentioned 
is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  state  to  exercise  its  pohce 
power  in  the  interest  of  the  puhHc  licalth,  csjiecially  of 
the  weaker  classes.  Two  observations  by  tlie  U.  S. 
Supreme  Court  are  worth  citing  here,  as  indicating  a 
dc()arturc  from  tlie  earher  tcn<lenry,  and  a  more  cn- 
hghtfiied  and  encourauing  attitude.  In  its  decision 
uj)holding  the  I'tah  eiglit-hour  hiw  for  adult  males  in 
mines  (the  case  of  Iloldcn  r.f.  Hardy)  the  court  de- 
clared that  in  dangerous  or  unhealthfid  employments, 
employer  and  employe  "do  not  stand  upon  an  equality"; 
that  the  laborers  "are  practically  constrained  to  obey 
the  rules  lai<i  down  by  the  i)roprietors,"  and  that  in 
such  cases  "the  legislature  may  properly  interpose  its 
authority"  in  the  interest  of  the  workers.  This  is  a 
frank  recognition  of  the  fact  that  unlimited  freedom  of 
contract  is  not  the  unmixed  good  that  it  is  assumed  to 
be  by  the  constitution  and  by  our  earlier  political 
philosophy.  Neither  the  public  health  nor  the  welfare 
of  women  or  children  was  involve  J  in  this  case,  but  the 
welfare  and  health  of  a  class  of  male  adults,  yet  the 
ccfurt  decided  that  this  species  of  class  legislation,  and 
this  restriction  of  the  right  of  free  contract,  were  con- 
stitutional. In  its  opinion  sustaining  the  ten-hour  law 
for  women  in  laundries  (Muller  v.t.  Oregon)  the  same 
court  declared  that  "woman  is  projjerly  placed  in  a 
class  by  herself,  and  legislation  destined  for  her  pro- 
tection may  be  sustained,  even  when  like  legislation  is 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  87 

not  necessary  for  men  and  coiiKi  not  be  sustained." 
Here  is  an  implicit  acceptance  of  an  elementary  but 
far-reaching  principle  of  reason  and  common  sense: 
while  Ie,i,'isIation  should  treat  all  indivduals  and  classes 
equally  in  so  far  as  they  are  equal,  it  ought  just  as 
surely  to  treat  them  unequally  in  those  respects  in 
which  they  are  unequal.  Xevertlieless  this  elementary 
priiK'ij)le  of  j)roportional  justice  is  at  least  verbally 
contradicted  by  the  provision  about  class  legislation  in 
the  natioruil  constitution.  Under  the  infhience  of 
public  oj)inion  and  a  larger  judicial  outlook,  this 
principle,  and  the  principles  noticed  above  in  the 
Utah  case,  could  very  well  be  made  to  sustain  minimum 
wage  legislation.  For  the  latter  is  as  certainly,  though 
not  as  obviously,  required  to  secure  genuine  freedom  of 
contract,  and  to  protect  the  health  and  vitality  of  a 
class  that  is  otherwise  unable  to  protect  itsrlf,  as  an 
eight-hour  law  for  men  in  mines  and  a  ten-liour  law  for 
women  in  laundries.  At  any  rate,  the  amendment  of 
the  constitution  is  not  a  physical  impossibility,  and  is 
apparently  ino\  ital)le  if  we  are  to  obtain  all  the  legis- 
lation demanded  by  our  changed  social  and  industrial 
conditions*. 

It  is  asserted,  in  the  third  place,  that  minimum  wage 
laws  could  not  be  enforced.  Undoubtedly  they  could 
not  be  enforced  perfectly,  l)ut  there  is  no  sufficient 
reason  to  think  that  thev  would  not  be  obeved  as  fullv 


'Since  this  parain"aph  was  written  the  Supreme  Court  of  the 
United  States  has  upheld  the  minimum  wage  law  of  Oregon.  This 
1.1W  applies,  however,  only  to  women  and  minors. 


88  The  Church  axd  Socialism 

as  the  great  majority  of  legal  enactments.  On  tlie 
contrary,  the  proportion  of  the  population  desiring  the 
enforcement  of  such  legislation  would  be  perhaps 
larger  tlian  in  the  case  of  most  laws  that  are  fairly  well 
observed.  The  appeal  to  the  failure  of  the  old  wage 
legislation  in  the  eighteenth  century  is  not  valid;  for, 
as  Professor  Adams  points  out,  those  regulations  were 
established  by  an  autocratic  minority  against  the 
interests  of  the  great  majority  for  the  maintenance  of 
maximum  instea<l  of  minimum  rates  of  wages;  and 
yet  many  of  them  were  consistently  enforced  for  cen- 
turies, until  the  landed  gentry  began  to  lose  control  of 
the  government  ("Labor  Problems,"  p.  499).  Tmlay 
minimum  wage  legislation  Mould  be  in  favor  of  the 
majority,  inaugurated  and  supported  by  the  majority, 
and  enforced  l)y  a  symi)athctic  administration. 

Finally  we  come  to  the  most  important  objection, 
the  one  drawn  from  economic  considerations.  Those 
who  urge  this  olijection  do  not,  as  a  rule,  deny  that  the 
natural  and  technical  resources  of  the  country  are 
sufficient  to  provide  decent  wages  for  the  vast  majority, 
and  considerably  more  than  this  for  the  remainder  of 
the  population.  All  they  contend  is  that  the  economic 
processes  of  prodiiction,  exchange,  distribution  and 
consumption  could  not  be  so  modified  by  the  proposed 
legislation  as  to  bring  about  this  happy  result.  Spe- 
cifically and  in  brief  their  argument  is  this :  An  increase 
in  the  wages  of  the  underpaid  in  any  given  industry 
would  cause  an  increase  in  the  cost  of  production; 
increased  cost  of  production  would  necessitate  a  rise 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  89 

in  the  price  of  the  product;  the  latter  would  be  followed 
by  a  lessened  demand,  at  least  on  the  part  of  those  con- 
sumers who  were  not  also  producers  of  the  goods  in 
question;  and  the  diminished  demand  would  either  be 
balanced  by  an  increased  demand  on  the  part  of  the 
laborers  whose  wages  had  been  increased,  or  it  would  not 
thus  be  balanced.  In  the  former  hypothesis  the 
workers  would  lose  as  consumers  all  that  they  had 
gained  as  producers;  in  the  latter  contingency,  some 
of  them  would  be  thrown  out  of  employment. 

The  objection  looks  formidable,  but  only  because  of 
its  bold  and  easy  assumptions  and  its  evasion  of  the 
task  of  sj>ecific  analysis.  It  is  no  more  valid  against 
a  legal  minimum  wage  than  it  is  against  any  other 
measure  that  aims  to  benefit  labor  at  the  immediate 
and  apparent  exj)ense  of  the  employer.  Every  suc- 
cesful  cflort  of  a  labor  union  to  obtain  more  wages, 
shorter  hours,  or  any  other  improvement  in  working 
conditions,  and  every  legal  regulation  of  factory  con- 
ditions, of  the  length  of  the  working  day,  or  of  the  age 
of  the  working  child,  puts  a  new  burden  on  the  em- 
ployer and  tends  to  increase  the  cost  of  production 
and  the  price  of  the  product.  Consequently,  if  the 
objection  were  sound,  the  whole  policy  of  trade  unionism 
and  all  the  achievements  of  labor  legislation  would 
have  been  futile  and  without  benefit  to  the  working 
classes.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  this  argument  has  always 
been  used  against  any  interference  with  the  freedom 
of  contract  between  master  and  man,  wlietlier  by 
legal   or   by   trade   imion   action.     It   was   for   many 


90  The  Church  and  Socialism 

years  efFectively  urged  both  hy  the  manufacturers  and 
economists  against  the  first  ])roj)Osals  to  hmit  the 
hours  of  labor  and  age  of  child  emj)loyes  in  the  English 
factories,  something  less  than  a  century  ago.  If  it 
had  prevailed,  English  Avomen  would  still  be  laboring  as 
beasts  of  burden  harnessed  to  carts  in  the  dejjths  of 
mines,  children  from  five  years  upward  would  be  toiling 
in  the  English  factories  sixteen  and  even  eighteen 
hours  a  day  under  the  lash  of  an  overseer,  English 
laborers  of  all  classes  would  still  be  forbidden  by  law 
to  organize  for  self-protection,  the  era  of  English  wage 
slavery  would  have  l»cen  prolonged  in  ever  increasing 
harshness  to  the  present  hour,  and  the  degeneration  of 
the  city  [)opulations  of  England  would  have  been  in- 
finitely greater  than  it  has  actually  become  (Cf. 
Gibbins,  "Industry  in  England,"  pp.  391,  sq.). 

Exi)erience  has  shown  that  the  injurious  results 
predicted  by  the  opponents  of  labor  legislation  and 
labor  organizations  have  not  taken  place.  There  has 
been  no  general  increase  in  prices,  nor  any  increase  in 
any  case  that  equaled  the  increase  in  wages  or  the 
expected  increase  in  other  items  of  the  cost  of  produc- 
tion. In  the  majority  of  instances  the  greater  part 
of  the  cost  has  been  met  by  an  increased  efficiency  in 
the  productive  process,  that  is,  in  labor,  in  machinery, 
and  in  the  combination  of  these  two  factors.  Another 
part  has  come  out  of  the  profits  of  those  concerns  that 
were  obtaining  more  than  the  usual  amount  of  interest 
on  their  investment.  Precisely  the  same  forces  would 
operate  in  those  industries  in  which  wages  would  be 


The  Legal  Miximlm  Wage  91 

raised  by  law  to  a  decent  level.  It  is  not,  indeed, 
true  that  every  increase  in  wages  will  be  followed  by 
an  equivalent  increase  in  productive  efficiency,  so  that 
all  the  added  cost  of  production  will  be  provided  by 
the  workers  tiiemselves,  or  by  the  workers  in  con- 
junction with  better  technical  processes.  This  will 
happen  in  some  cases,  but  no  general  rule  can  be  formu- 
lated to  indicate  when  it  will  hapi)cn  (Cf.  Ilobson, 
"The  Evolution  of  Modern  Capitalism,"  chap,  xiv, 
new  ed.).  It  seems  quite  probable,  however,  that 
where  the  increase  in  wages  is  merely  sufficient  to  raise 
the  worker  from  a  condition  of  sub-normal  to  one  of 
normal  physical  efficiency,  the  greater  part  of  the 
additional  wages  will  be  available  in  the  form  of  a 
larger  j)roduct.  In  other  words,  the  underfed,  under- 
clothed  and  underhoused  laborer,  when  brought  up 
to  the  level  of  a  normal  standard  of  living,  is  able  to 
create  most  of  the  difference  between  starvation  wages 
and  tlie  remuneration  necessary  to  maintain  the 
normal  standard.  The  greater  i)art  of  the  remaining 
cost  of  the  higher  wages  would  proljably  come  through 
the  substitution  of  machinery  for  hand  labor,  and  of 
better  machinery  for  antiquated  processes;  through  the 
elimination  of  the  less  efficient  directors  of  industry, 
and  the  better  organization  of  tlie  productive  forces; 
and  through  a  reduction  of  the  returns  on  monopolistic 
capital,  and  on  capital  that  would  suffer  such  a  reduc- 
tion rather  than  take  ffight  into  other  industries. 
Nevertheless  it  is  overwhelmingly  probable  that  some 
of  the  additional  wage  cost  would  in  some  of  the  in- 


92  The  Chl-rcit  and  Socialism 

dustries  he  transferred  to  the  product  in  the  form  of 
higher  prices. 

How  Large  this  increase  in  prices  would  l)c  cannot 
be  determined  even  api)roximately.  Obviously  it 
would  differ  in  different  intlustries.  The  one  general 
statement  that  seems  to  he  fairly  safe  is  that  the  total 
increase  in  prices  in  all  the  industries  affected  would 
he  less  than  half  the  total  increase  in  wages.  Conse- 
quently, even  if  the  laborers  themselves  were  the 
sole  consumers  of  their  pro<lucts,  they  would  gain 
in  wages  much  more  tlian  tliey  would  lose  on 
account  of  the  higher  prices  that  tbey  would  be 
obliged  to  pay  as  consumers.  In  most  industries, 
however,  tl'.e  workers  would  consume  only  a  small 
fraction  of  tl'.e  goods  of  which  tlicy  are  the  producers. 
By  far  the  greater  part  wouKl  be,  as  now,  consumed  by 
persons  not  connected  with  the  industry.  \ow,  it  is 
morally  certain  that  the  latter  would  not  buy  as  much 
as  they  formerly  did  of  the  goods  upon  which  the  price 
was  raised.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  no  less  certain 
that  they  would  not  reduce  their  demand  in  exact 
proportion  to  the  rise  in  the  price.  In  other  words, 
they  would  as  a  body  pay  out  a  larger  sum  total  for  the 
purchase  of  these  goods  than  they  had  paid  formerly. 
Some  of  them,  indeed,  would  take  just  as  much  of  th.e 
goods  as  before;  others  would  take  somewhat  less,  but 
would  still  expend  a  larger  sum  total;  while  others 
would  reduce  their  purchases  by  an  amount  fully 
equivalent  to  the  increased  price.  The  net  result, 
therefore,  is  twofold;  first,  a  part  of  the  increased  wage 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  93 

cost  would  be  defrayed  by  consumers  not  engaged  in 
the  industry,  but  w  hose  remuneration  was  not  affected 
by  the  operation  of  the  minimum  wage  law;  and,  second, 
there  would  be  some  falling  off  in  the  combined  demand 
for  goods  by  these  two  classes  of  consumers.     Con- 
sequently, it  would  seem  that  this  decrease  in  demand 
must  lead  to  a  smaller  amount  of  emplojTnent  in  some  of 
the  industries  afTected  by  the  minimum  wage  legislation. 
This  inference,  however,  is  fallacious,  inasmuch  as  it 
leaves  out  of  account  the  increased  purchasing  power 
of   th.e   workers   whose   wages  would   be   raised.     The 
latter  would  create  a  new  demand  for  the  products  of 
the  afTected  industries  in  two  ways;  directly,  because 
the  benefited  workers  would  exjjcnd  i)art  of  their  in- 
creased remuneration  for  these  products,  and  indirectly, 
since  their  increased  demand  for  the  products  of  other 
industries  would  increase  the  purchasing  power  of  those 
emj)loyed  in   the  latter,  part  of  which  would  be  ex- 
clianged  for  the  products  of  the  workers  in  the  industries 
afTected  by  the  minimum  wage  regulation.     So  many 
factors  and  so  many  elements  of  prophecy  are  involved 
in  the  [)roblem  that  the  net  result  as  to  employment 
cannot   be   foretold   with    any   degree   of   confidence. 
Nevertheless,  experience,  analogy  and  all  the  available 
indications  would  seem  to  justify  the  assertion  that  the 
sum  total  of  employment,  both  within  and  without  the 
afTected  industries,  would  not  necessarily  be  diminished, 
and  would  not  improbably  be  increased. 

Even  if  some  of  the  workers  should  be  thrown  out  of 
employment  the  general  social  effect  would  be  good. 


94  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Tlie  number  of  workers  who  would  be  able  to  fit  their 
children  for  and  to  raise  themselves  into  higher  occupa- 
tions would  be  increased,  while  the  social  cost  of 
lessened  vitality  and  of  various  forms  of  dependence 
anionf;  those  actually  employed  would  be  greatly 
dininished.  Most  imi)ortant  of  all,  an  increase  in 
unemployment  arising  out  of  a  lepal  regulation  of 
^^agcs  would  force  the  state  to  face  squarely  and  in  a 
(•()mi)rchcnsivc  way  the  whole  problem  of  the  unem- 
ployed and  the  unemployable.  To  this  we  shall  have 
to  come  sooner  or  later,  and  the  sooner  the  better. 
We  need  public  labor  exchanges  for  an  adeqiuite  ad- 
justment of  supply  to  demand  in  [)lace  and  time, 
labor  colonics  for  those  who  can  but  will  not  work 
effectively,  and  employment  in  public  enterprises  for 
those  who  cannot  be  taken  care  of  by  the  other  two 
metho<ls.  If  all  these  measures  combined  should  f;ill 
short  of  complete  cfTcclivcness,  both  individual  and 
social  welfare  would  suggest  that  the  state  should 
support  some  of  the  laboring  class  in  idleness  rather 
than  permit  anyone  of  average  efficiency  to  work  for 
less  than  living  wages. 

In  this,  as  in  all  other  cases  where  there  is  question 
of  the  solution  of  a  social  problem,  an  ounce  of  fact  is 
worth  a  pound  of  theory.  Unfortunately  we  have  as 
yet  no  sufficient  amount  of  facts,  in  the  sense  of  ex- 
perience, to  afTord  as  much  guidance.  What  we  have, 
however,  is  distinctly  favorable.  The  compulsory 
arbitration  laws  of  New  Zealand  and  of  some  of  the 
Australian    states   embody   the   principle    of   a    legal 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  95 

minimum  wage,  inasmuch  as  the  rates  fixed  by  the 
arbitration  courts  are  the  lowest  that  any  employer  is 
permitted  to  pay  throughout  the  trade  involved  in  the 
dispute  and  the  award.  Despite  their  limitations, 
these  laws  have  been  successful  not  only  in  securing 
industrial  peace,  but  in  maintaining  decent  wages  in  all 
the  trades  afTected.  This  is  the  verdict  of  all  impartial 
observers.  \  ictoria,  Australia,  has  had  minimum 
wage  boards  since  189G.  They  consist  of  two  groups, 
numerically  equal,  chosen  from  among  the  employers 
and  employes  in  an  industry,  together  with  a  charimati 
elected  by  l)oth  these  groups  or  ai)pointed  by  the  gover- 
nor. At  the  beginning  there  were  only  six  Ijoards,  but 
the  number  has  increascti  steadily  until  it  has  reached 
thirty-eight  or  more.  Eleven  of  these  have  l^een 
established  at  the  request  of  emi)loyers.  Since  1904 
the  boards  are  forbidden  to  fix  higher  rates  than  those 
paid  by  the  reputable  employers  in  a  trade.  Workers 
who  fall  below  the  average  in  sj)eed  or  efficiency  can 
obtain  permits  to  work  for  less  than  the  legal  minimum, 
but  the  number  of  these  must  never  be  greater  than  one 
in  five  in  any  establishment.  There  is  a  court  of 
appeals  to  which  the  decisions  of  the  boards  may  be 
taken  for  revision. 

This  Victorian  scheme  was  inaugurated  during  a 
period  of  business  depression,  and  has  since  been  tested 
by  good  times  and  moderately  good  times.  Through 
an  oversight  of  the  legislature  in  1902  the  boards  were 
deprived  of  legal  authority,  but  so  great  was  the  dis- 
satisfaction   ensuing    that    the    law    was    quickly    re- 


96  The  Church  axd  Socialism 

enacted.  Among  the  beneficial  effects  of  tlie  hoards 
enmnerated  hy  Mr.  Macrosty,  an  impartial  witness, 
are:  A  hetter  or<,'anization  of  indnstrial  factors  and 
processes,  no  rise  of  prices  to  the  consnmer,  and  an 
increase  of  both  uaj^es  and  emj)loyment  in  dull  times, 
as  compared  with  the  trades  in  which  no  wage  boards 
existed  ("Trade  Unions  and  Labor  Problems,"  pp. 
^213-216).  Another  competent  and  fair  observer,  Dr 
Victor  S.  Clark,  declares  that  "the  wajres  of  all  female 
workers  and  of  all  adult  nuile  workers  are  hipher  in  the 
trades  aflected  by  the  boards;  but  the  wages  of  boys  and 
youths  are  higher  in  occuf^ations  free  from  government 
control"  ("The  Labor  Movement  in  Australia,"  p. 
148).  Boys  get  higher  pay  in  the  unregulated  trades 
because  they  do  men's  work  there,  while  in  the  regu- 
lated trades  the  employment  of  juvenile  labor  is  dis- 
couraged. The  obvious  and  urgent  remedy  for  this 
condition  is  to  extend  the  oj)eration  of  the  boards  to 
all  trades,  compel  employers  to  pay  boys  and  women 
men's  wages  for  men's  work,  and  provide  some  com- 
prehensive plan  of  industrial  training  and  apprentice- 
ship. If,  as  is  probable,  the  minimum  wage  legislation 
forces  the  state  to  take  up  the  latter  problem  sooner 
than  it  would  otherwise  have  acted,  the  legislation 
will  have  still  another  achievement  to  its  credit.  Dr. 
Clark's  general  conclusion  is  that  no  final  judgment  as 
to  the  value  of  the  boards  is  now  possible,  that  while 
the  law  has  not  eradicated  the  evils  it  was  designed  to 
meet,  "nevertheless  it  appears  to  have  mitigated  them," 
and  that  "tlie  workers  themselves,  who  ought  to  be 


The  Legal  Minhmum  Wage  97 

the  best  judges,  commend  the  effect  of  the  act." 
Indeed,  the  minimum  wage  legislation  is,  according 
to  the  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  on  Home  Work 
appointed  by  tlie  British  Parliament,  "very  largely  and 
generally,  if  not  universally,  approved  by  the  people  of 
Australia."  The  tendency  seems  to  be  toward  ex- 
tending the  law  to  all  trades,  and  this  is  well;  for  its 
best  effects  cannot  be  obtained  until  it  is  api)lied 
universally,  and  systematic  provision  is  made  for  the 
uneinj)loyed  and  unemi)loyable.  Dr.  Clark  declares 
that  state  resi)onsil)ility  for  a  living  wage,  which  is 
implied  in  the  Victorian  legislation,  "logically  leads  to 
the  responsibility  of  the  state  for  employment  at  that 
wage."  So  much  is  not  necessarily  included  in  the 
theory.  On  its  face  a  law  of  this  kind  merely  lays 
down  the  principle  that  all  workers  of  average  efficiency 
who  are  employed  must  be  paid  sufficient  to  maintain 
them  in  conditions  of  decent  living,  although  this 
principle  undoubtedly  suggests  that  the  state  has  an 
equivalent  duty  toward  those  of  its  citizens  who  cannot 
find  employment.  It  is  not,  indeed,  obliged  to  provide 
a  livelihood  for  all  its  members  directly,  but  it  fails 
in  one  of  its  primary  functions  if  it  does  not  assure  to 
them  the  conditions  in  which  they  can  obtain  a  decent 
livelihood.  If  some  of  the  population  cannot  obtain 
such  conditions  in  private  industry,  they  ought  to  be 
provided  with  public  employment.  For  the  right  to 
live  decently  by  one's  labor  is  as  important  as  the  right  to 
life  and  more  important  than  the  general  righ  t  of  property. 
The  Report  of  the  Select  Committee  referred    to 


98  The  Church  and  Socialism 

above,  reconiniended  the  establishment  of  minimum 
wage  boards  for  the  jirotection  of  the  home  workers  in 
Great  Britain.  In  accordance  with  this  rcconmienda- 
tion  Parliament  passed  an  act  which  went  into  efTect 
at  the  beiiinninp  of  the  present  year.  The  constitu- 
tion of  the  liritish  boards  is  substantially  the  same  as 
tliat  of  the  boards  in  \'ictoria.  Inasmuch  as  they  are 
to  apply  (jnly  to  home  workers,  who  are  the  most 
I'.elpless  and  the  poorest  paid  of  En^dish  laborers,  the 
new  experiment  will  have  a  distinct  value.  If  it 
proves  successful  in  even  a  moderate  decree  it  will,  in 
conjunction  with  the  experience  of  \  ictoria,  create  an 
exceediufily  strong  presumption  in  favor  of  the  universal 
value  of  mininuim  wage  legislation. 

Some  who  admit  that  minimum  wage  boards  would 
effect  considerable  improvement  in  the  conditions  of  the 
underpaid  deny  that  they  would  i)rove  an  adequate 
remedy.  Since  the  radical  cause  of  insufficient  w  ages  is 
an  excessive  supply  of  unskilled  labor,  no  measure  will 
afTord  i)ermancnt  relief  that  does  not  reduce  this  over- 
sujiply.  Xot  even  state  employment  of  all  who  could 
not  find  work  otherwise  would  be  efTective,  for  the 
latter  would  be  unskilled  laborers,  and  their  product 
must,  therefore,  be  thrown  upon  a  market  that  is 
already  overstocked  with  tliat  class  of  goods.  Iience, 
the  only  adequate  remedies  are  limitation  of  ofl"spring 
among  the  families  of  the  unskilled,  restriction  of 
immigration,  and  universal  industrial  education.  There 
is  considerable  force  in  these  observations.  Un- 
doubtedly the  fundamental  e\  il  is  an  excessive  supply 


The  Legal  Minimum  Wage  99 

of  unskilled  labor.  Nevertheless,  deliberate  limitation 
of  the  size  of  families  is  delusive,  immoral  and  socially 
demoralizinf^.  Some  restriction  of  immigration  would 
no  doubt  be  helpful  and  wise,  and  a  comprehensive 
scheme  of  industrial  education,  which  will  not  only 
increase  the  efficiency  of  the  unskilled,  but  reduce  their 
luunbersby  a  levelinR-up  i)rocess,  is  a  crying  necessity. 
No  advocate  of  minimum  wage  legislation  contend^' 
that  it  wouhl  be  all-sufficient.  It  must  be  supi)le- 
niented  by  the  measures  advocated,  by  far-reaching 
[irovision  for  the  unemployed  ami  the  unemployable, 
and  by  legislation  that  will  prevent  the  exploitation  of 
the  consumer,  and  the  liTuitatioii  of  o()portunity, 
through  monoi)oly  and  special  privilege.  Moreover, 
the  adoption  of  most  of  these  supi)lementary  measures 
would  be  considerably  hastened  by  the  establishment 
and  operation  of  mininuim  wage  boards.  The  number 
and  the  grievances  of  the  underjjaid  would  be  forced 
upon  j)ul)lic  attention,  and  the  problem  of  devising 
adequate  remedies  would  become  a  vital  and  urgent 
{)ublic  question. 

Since  the  foregoing  was  written,  thirteen  states  of 
our  country  and  the  District  of  Columbia  have  enacted 
minimum  wage  laws.  The  legislation  has  become 
universal  in  Australia  and  New  Zealand  and  has  been 
extended  to  a  very  large  proportion  of  the  industries  of 
Great  Britain.  A  considerable  beginning  has  also 
been  made  in  Canada.  This  rapid  development  and 
application  of  the  movement  and  measure  have  been 
mainl}'  due  to  the  favorable  results  of  the  law  wherever 
it  has  been  tried.     It  is  no  longer  an  experiment. 


V 
MORAL  ASPECTS  OF  TIIK  LABOR  UNION 

Tlie  purposes  of  the  lahor  union  are,  briefly,  two: 
to  pive  i)ccuniary  aid  to  nieinhcrs  in  time  of  sickness, 
accident  or  unemployment,  and  to  secure  better  con- 
ditions of  emi)loymoMt  than  wouhl  be  possible  if  the 
men  acted  as  individuals.  The  first  of  these  aims  is 
much  the  less  important,  and  tends  year  by  year  to 
occuj^y  an  ever  smaller  i)lace  in  labor  union  coiscious- 
ness.  Indeed,  the  mutual  insjirance  feature  nuist,  as 
Sidney  and  Beatrice  Webb  observe,  be  regarded,  "not 
as  the  end  or  object,  but  as  oi;e  of  the  methods  of 
Trade  Unionism"  ("Industrial  Democracy,"  p.  10.3). 
The  common  funds  of  the  as>ociation  are  used  chiefly 
to  supjiort  members  who  are  out  of  work  because  of  a 
strike  or  lockout.  Thus  the  mutual  insurance  afforded 
is  for  the  most  part  only  against  the  necessity  of  ac- 
cepting unfavorable  terms  from  the  emi)loyer.  The 
first  aim  tends  to  become  subonlinate  to  the  second, 
a  mere  means,  a  method  of  securing  or  retaining  indus- 
trial advantages.  Therefore,  the  justification  of  the 
labor  union  as  an  institution  turns  upon  the  morality 
of  combining  to  get  higher  wages,  shorter  hours  or 
other  economic  advantages,  and  of  resisting  the  efforts 
of  the  employer  to  reduce  the  laborer's  present  position 
in  any  of  these  respects. 

Laborers   have   a   moral   right   to   unite   to   obtain 
better  terms  from  their  employers  if  this  action  would 
100 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       101 

involve  no  injustice  to  either  employer  or  consumer. 
They  may,  for  example,  rightly  combine  to  get  higher 
wages  when  these  would  not  be  unfair  wages.  But  if 
they  are  at  i)rcsent  receiving  all  the  remuneration  to 
which  they  are  morally  entitled  their  action  is  wrong 
and  unjust.  F'or  men  have  no  more  right  as  an 
organization  than  as  individuals  to  "better  their 
condition"  by  causing  other  men  to  enter  into  an 
extortionate  contract.  What  is  true  of  wages  applies 
also  to  the  length  of  the  working  day  and  the  other 
conditions  of  employment  that  are  commonly  at 
issue  between  master  and  man.  Again,  if  the  jiurpose 
of  the  organization  be  merely  to  enable  its  members 
to  retain  present  advantages  that  are  fair  the  union 
will  be  morally  good.  It  will  be  unlawful  only  when 
the  niembers  enjoy  conditions  that  are  in  excess  of 
the  requirements  of  justice.  Hence,  whether  the  union 
aims  at  making  things  better  or  preventing  them  from 
being  made  worse,  it  will  be  justifiable  only  on  con- 
dition that  its  members  have  a  right,  as  against  either 
employers  or  consumers,  to  the  object  sought. 

This  reasoning  assumes  that  there  is  an  element  of 
justice  in  the  labor  contract.  Neither  employer  nor 
em{)loye  may  exact  from  the  other  all  that  he  can 
but  only  as  much  as  is  his  right.  Owing  to  the  prev- 
alence of  false  theories  of  politics  and  rights,  this 
elementary  truth  has  been,  and  still  is,  too  frequently 
ignored.  Professor  Sidg^N'ick  confesses  that  during  the 
greater  part  of  the  nineteenth  century  political  economy 
as  well  as  the  business  world  assumed  that  a  contract 


102  The  Church  and  Socialism 

made  without  force  or  fraud  was  generally  a  fair  con- 
tract. This  extraordinary  theory  of  contractual  justice 
would  justify  alike  the  starvation  wages  of  the  sweat- 
shop and  the  extortionate  prices  of  the  most  tyrannous 
monopoly.  If  it  were  sound,  the  question  of  the 
morality  of  labor  union  aims  would  be  idle  and  ir- 
relevant. Whatever  the  unions  could  obtain  without 
fraud  or  force  they  would  have  a  right  to  take.  They 
could  be  condcmnetl  only  on  grounds  of  exj)cdiency. 
Happily  there  is  in  progress  a  very  general  reaction 
from  this  immoral  tloctrine,  and  almost  all  men  now 
admit  that  there  is  a  fair  price  and  an  unfair  price  for 
labor,  as  ^^ell  as  for  all  other  goo<ls  that  men  buy  and 
.sell.  The  world  is  returning  to  the  concei)t  of  "ju.st 
price,"  which  the  economist,  as  I'rofessor  Ashley  tells 
us,  "has  been  accustomed  to  regard  as  quite  out  of 
place  in  political  economy,"  but  wliich  in  the  ages  of 
faith  was  elaborated  with  scientific  precision  and  carried 
fairly  well  into  practice  throughout  the  Christian  m  orid. 
Interwoven  with  all  the  criticisms  of  labor  unions  is 
the  assumption  and  frequently  the  explicit  assertion 
that  they  are  asking  not  merely  what  is  unwise,  but 
what  is  unjust. 

Now  it  is  the  general  belief  of  all  classes  of  men,  a 
small  section  of  employers  excepted,  that  the  laborer 
of  today  receives  less  than  his  just  share  of  wealth 
and  opportunity.  The  organized  struggle  of  the  labor- 
ing classes,  says  John  Graham  Brooks,  "assumes  that 
the  present  competitive  wage  system  does  not  bring 
justice  to  labor,"  and  he  adds  that  "our  society  is 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       103 

full  of  extremely  influential  persons  who  say  point 
blank  that  labor's  protest  is  in  the  main  a  righteous 
one  and  should  prevail"  ("The  Social  Unrest,"  p.  154). 
In  proof  of  the  latter  statement  he  quotes  a  large  list 
of  these  "influential  persons,"  beginning  with  Wagner, 
the  composer,  and  ending  with  Leo  XIIL  Although 
the  determination  of  the  lal)orer's  just  share  of  economic 
and  social  goods  is  neither  so  simple  nor  so  easy  as  is 
frequently  assumed,  the  general  conviction  just  men- 
tioned is  undoiii>tedIy  correct.  Reference  is  had,  of 
course,  to  the  laboring  class  as  a  whole,  not  to  a  small, 
highly  i)aid  section;  for  it  seems  sufTiciently  clear  that 
some  grouj)s  of  workmen  receive  at  present  a  wage 
that  meets  all  the  requirements  of  justice,  and  con- 
sequently that  any  attempt  on  their  part,  whether  by 
organization  or  otherwise,  to  exact  more  favorable 
conditions  would  be  an  act  of  injustice.  Even  in  the 
case  of  these,  however,  the  labor  iniion  will  usually  be 
necessary  in  order  that  effectual  resistance  may  be 
offered  to  those  forces  that  tend  to  reduce  the  position 
of  labor  below  an  equitable  level. 

In  order  to  realize  these  aims  the  labor  union  is  not 
only  justified  but  indispensable.  Unbiased  and  well- 
informed  men  no  longer  accept  the  complacent  and 
utterly  gratuitous  theory  of  Bastiat  and  his  school 
concerning  the  beautiful  compensations  and  harmonies 
of  unlimited  competition.  Natural  economic  forces 
do  not  tend  automatically  and  inevitably  to  a  con- 
tinuous betterment  of  the  position  of  the  laborer. 
It  has  been  proved  by  abundant  and  bitter  experience 


104  THK    ClirRCH    AN'D    SOCIAUSM 

tliat  the  unchecked  tendencies  of  the  industrial  world 
all  point  in  the  oj){)osite  direction.  So  conservative 
a  writer  as  the  late  Francis  A.  Walker  declared  almost 
thirty  years  ajjo  that  there  was  no  virtue,  no  tendency 
even,  in  strictly  industrial  forces  to  make  good  the 
loss  caused  by  specific  instances  of  unemployment, 
waf^e  reductions  or  other  labor  misfortunes  (see  "The 
Wages  Question,"  chap.  iv).  Fifteen  years  later  we 
find  him  writing:  "Nothing,  economically  speaking, 
can  save  industrial  society  from  progressive  degrada- 
tion except  the  spirit  and  power  of  the  working  classes 
to  resist  being  crowded  down"  ("Elementary  Course 
in  Political  Economy,"  p.  2G6).  The  fact  is  that, 
instead  of  being  endowed  with  the  fatalistic  character 
that  is  still  too  frequently  attributed  to  them,  economic 
forces  are  for  the  most  part  created  and  controlled 
by  the  human  beings  that  compose  economic  society; 
and  if  the  laborer  leaves  their  direction  entirely  in  the 
hands  of  the  consumer  and  the  employer,  his  economic 
position  must  grow  steadily  worse.  The  consumer 
generally  cares  only  for  cheap  goods,  and  even  with  the 
best  intentions  cannot,  merely  as  a  consumer,  do  much 
td  check  this  tendency.  The  majority  of  emj)loyers 
are  neither  suflBciently  benevolent,  sufliciently  far- 
sighted,  nor,  in  a  regime  of  sharp  competition,  suffi- 
ciently powerful  to  afTord  the  laborer  adequate  pro- 
tection. No  entire  class  or  industrial  grade  of  laborers 
has  ever  secured  or  retained  any  important  economic 
advantage  except  by  its  own  aggressiveness  and  its 
own  powers  of  resistance,  brought  to  bear  upon  ^^^ 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       10.> 

employer  through  the  medium  of  force  (economic)  or 
fear.  It  is  not  denied  that  individual  employers  have 
voluntarily  bettered  the  condition  of  their  employes, 
or  \villingly  refrained  from  making  it  ^vorse;  but  these 
instances  are  excej)tions  and,  considering  the  whole 
number  of  emi)loyers  and  the  entire  history  of  the  wage 
system,  rare  exceptions.  Now  it  is  obvious  that  the 
alertness,  the  aggressiveness,  to  seize  and  make  the 
most  of  oi)j)ortunilies  for  advancement,  the  energy 
and  power  to  resist  being  crowded  down,  can  be  i:  ! 
efficacious  only  when  crystallized  in  organizations. 
This  a  priori  expectation  has  been  realized  in  experi- 
ence. The  labor  union  has  secured  large  gains  not 
only  for  the  emi)loycs  of  single  establishments  but  fo^ 
entire  groui)s  of  workers,  and  it  has  ])robably  been 
even  more  effectual  in  preventing  losses.  To  quote  the 
United  States  Industrial  Coninissioii:  "An  over- 
whelming preponderance  of  t<  alimony  before  the 
Industrial  Commission  indicntcb  that  the  organization 
of  labor  has  resulted  in  a  niaiked  improvement  in  the 

economic   condition    of    the   workers Vnd    it    is 

regarded  by  several  witicsses  as  an  influcnrc  of  great 
importance  in  mridc;  ating  the  severity  of  dci)ression 
and  diminishing  its  length"  ("Final  Report  of  the 
Industrial  Commission,"  pp.  802,  8()4j. 


1.  The  Sir  ike. — Botli,  in  its  general  effects  upon  the 
community  and  in  tli«  place  that  it  occupies  in  the 
minds  of  workingmen,  this  is  the  most  imjjortant  of 
labor  union   methods.     Even   when   it  is   carried  on 


106  The  Church  and  Socialism 

without  violation  of  the  rights  of  any  one,  it  usually 
causes  losses  more  or  less  pravc  to  cmi)loyer,  emj)loye 
arul  the  general  i)ul)lic.  it  lias,  moreover,  a  strong 
tendency  to  foment  the  passions  of  anger  and  hatred, 
and  it  i)uts  before  the  workers  temjjtations  to  physical 
force  that  cannot  easily  be  resisted.^' In  view  of  these 
facts,  common-sense  and  respect  for  the  moral  law 
dictate  that  a  strike  should  not  he  resorted  to  unless 
three  conditions  are  verified,  namely:  that  a  j)eaceful 
solution  of  the  difficulty  has  been  found  ineffective, 
that  the  grievance  is  great  in  pro])ortion  to  the  incon- 
veuionces  that  are  liable  to  result,  and  that  there  is  a 
reasonable  hope  that  the  strike  will  be  successful.  Of 
•"ourse  it  is  always  understood  that  the  strike  is  on 
behalf  of  some  advantage  to  which  the  laborers  have  a 
right.  Where  any  one  of  these  conditions  is  wanting, 
the  calling  of  a  st  ike  will  be  unjustifiable  and  immoral/ 
Two  of  the  subordinate  methods — subordinate  be- 
cause in  nearly  all  cases  incident  to  the  strike — that  are 
sometimes  employed  by  union  workmen  (and  others 
likewise)  are  violence  ami  the  symi)athetic  strike. 
Concerning  the  prevalence  <  f  tiie  former  practice, 
there  is  a  moat  detd  of  «»aggeration  in  the  public 
press,  and  especially  in  the  statements  of  some  em- 
ployers. For  example,  the  executive  committee 
of  the  "Citizens'  Industrial  A-ociation"  asserted 
a  few  years  ago  that  -vithin  the  last  few  years 
"the  cases  are  innumerable  in  which  workingmen  have 
been  disabled  and  murdered."  If  words  are  to  be 
accepted    in    their    ordinary   sense,    this    assertion    is 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uniox       107 

simply  false.  John  Mitchell  maintains  that  the  amount 
of  violence  in  strikes  is  infinitestiinal  when  compared 
with  that  which  attends  the  ordinary  course  of  life. 
"After  all,  violence  is  a  less  common  accompaniment 
of  lal)or  disputes  than  is  often  supposed"  ("Final 
Report  of  Industrial  Commission,"  p.  879).  Within 
recent  years  there  has  been  a  consideral)le  improve- 
ment in  this  matter — an  improvement  both  in  the 
attitude  of  the  leaders  and  in  the  conduct  of  the  workers. 
Nevertheless,  it  seems  to  be  even  now  true  to  say  that 
the  use  of  physical  force  in  strikes  is  not  of  the  nature 
of  a  rare  exception.  The  conclusion  .seems  reasonable 
that  a  large  proportion  of  workingmen  believe  that 
they  have  a  moral  riuht  to  use  this  method  both  acamst 
the  intractable  employer  and  against  the  laborers  who 
would  take  their  places.  They  seem  to  claim  a  certain 
"right  to  their  jobs."  They  quit  these  with  the  ex- 
pectation of  resuming  them  when  their  demands  shall 
have  been  conceded,  and  they  seem  to  hold  that  the 
employer  and  the  .so-called  "scab"  are  in  the  position 
of  nicn  attemj  ting  to  deprive  them  of  their  rights. 
They  conclude,  therefore,  that  they  are  justified  in 
meeting  this  aggression  with  the  weapons  of  might, 
just  as  they  would  resist  an  attack  on  their  persons  or 
property  by  robbers. 

In  this  claim  which  we  suppose  the  laborer  to  make 
there  are  two  distinct  issues  which,  though  often  found 
together,  are  separable  both  in  logic  and  in  the  world 
of  reality.  The  first  is  the  laborer's  right  to  his  job, 
while  the  second  is  his  right  to  just  conditions  of 


108  The  CnuRcii  and  Socialism 

employment.  The  latter  riglit  can  exist  in  the  absence 
of  the  former, and  both  miglit  be  valid  withoutconferring 
on  the  laborer  the  right  to  defei  d  them  by  force. 
Moreover,  it  is  clear  that  even  though  there  be  no 
such  thing  as  a  right  to  a  job,  both  the  employer  who 
discharges  his  men  without  just  cause  and  th.e  workers 
who  strike  without  a  real  grievance  will  be  guilty  of 
violating  charity. 

Does  the  laborer  possess  this  so-called  right  to  his 
job.'  The  question,  of  course,  concerns  moral,  not 
legal  rights.  The  Abbe  Naudet  strongly  maintains 
that  such  a  right  exists  in  the  case  of  skilled  laborers. 
These  men  have  spent  a  considerable  time  in  learning 
their  present  trade  and  cannot  readily  become  ac- 
quainted with  another  equally  remunerative.  The 
civil  law  should  guarantee  them  a  right  to  their  avoca- 
tion (propricl^  dc  la  profession)  similar  to  that  which 
the  officer  enjoys  with  regard  to  his  rank  in  the  army. 
The  skilled  laborer  ijcrforms,  after  a  costly  appren- 
ticeship, a  duty  to  society,  and  in  return  has  a  right  to 
receive  adequate  protection  in  his  i)osition  ('Tropriete, 
Capital,  et  Travail,"  pp.  383-390).  The  Abbe  Naudet 
would  vindicate  this  right  of  the  skilled  man  as  against 
the  unskilled,  even  in  the  case  of  a  job  for  which  both 
are  competing  and  which  neither  has  previously  held. 
^Vhatever  may  be  said  about  this  particular  class,  the 
reasons  for  asserting  that  some  workmen  have  a  right 
to  remain  in  their  present  employment  as  long  as  they 
conduct  themselves  reasonably  are  much  stronger 
than  is  commonly  assumed.     And  they  are  based  not 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uxiox       109 

merely  on  the  principles  of  social  or  legal  justice,  but 
have  to  do  with  the  justice  that  exists  between  men  as 
individuals.  Here  is  a  laborer  with  a  family  and 
owning,  perliaps,  the  home  in  which  he  lives.  If  he 
loses  his  present  position,  he  must  either  accept  a  much 
less  remunerative  job  or  leave  the  city.  Certainly  it 
seems  in  accordance  with  not  only  the  spirit,  but  the 
accepted  i)rincii)les  of  justice  to  say  that  if  this  man  is 
discharged  v,ithout  reasonable  cause  the  injury  done 
him  amoimts  to  a  violation  of  his  rights.  There  is, 
indeed,  no  obligation  issuing  immediately  either  from 
the  natural  law  or  the  wage  contract  binding  the 
employer  to  keep  this  j)articular  man  on  his  pay  roll, 
but  such  an  obligation  seems  to  flow  mediately  from 
the  conjunction  of  law  and  contract.  The  laborer  has 
a  natural  right  to  enjoy  reasonable  conditions  of  exist- 
ence. This  abstract  right  takes,  on  the  occasion  of  the 
wage  contract,  the  concrete  form  of  a  right  to  reasonable 
security  of  position,  as  well  as  a  right  to  fair  wages. 
If  we  comj)aic  the  right  thus  claimed  with  the  right  of 
the  first  occupant  to  a  given  portion  of  land,  we  shall 
see  that  it  is  not  essentially  difTerent  from  or  essentially 
inferior  to  tlie  latter.  The  first  arrival  on  a  i>iece  of 
land  has,  in  common  with  other  men,  a  natural  right 
to  live  from  the  produce  of  the  earth,  and,  as  a  corollary 
of  this,  a  right  to  hold  a  portion  of  the  earth  as  his 
private  property.  But  he  has  no  immediate  natural 
right  to  the  particular  section  of  the  earth  that  he  has 
seized.  There  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  this  land  nor 
in  his  own  nature  which  would  dictate  that  he  should 


110  The  Chlrch  and  Socialism 

have  it  rather  tliaii  his  neighbor,  wlio  arrived  a  httle 
later.  How  comes  it,  then,  that,  according  to  all 
Catholic  moralists  and  the  practically  unanimous 
usage  of  all  j)eoi)les,  the  land  belongs  to  th.e  first  comer 
rather  than  to  the  second?  Simply  because  this 
arrangement  is  reasonable.  The  indeterminate,  general 
and  abstract  right  Avhich  by  nature  every  man  has  to 
I)rivate  proj)erty  nmst,  if  men  are  to  live  rationally 
together,  become  determinate,  particular  and  concrete 
in  some  reasonable  way;  and  one  of  the  reasonable  v  ays 
is  by  assigning  validity  and  sacreiliiess  to  the  contingent 
fact  of  first  occui)ancy.  On  precisely  the  same  prin- 
ciples the  laborer  that  we  are  considering  seems  to  have 
a  right  to  his  job.  His  indeterminate  and  abstract 
right  to  private  property  in  the  goods  that  are  essential 
to  right  living  is  for  the  present  converted  into  the 
determinate  and  concrete  right  to  fair  wages  from  this 
j)articular  employer,  and  it  would  seem  that  the  latter 
right  is  not  j)roperly  and  reasonably  safeguarded, 
does  not,  indeed,  contain  all  that  is  involved  in  the 
right  to  a  reasonable  living,  unless  it  includes  the  further 
right  to  continue  to  receive  these  wages  as  long  as  he 
honestly  earns  tliem  and  the  employer  is  able  to  pay 
them.  True,  there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  things 
to  suggest  or  require  that  John  Jones  should  continue 
to  employ  John  Smith,  but  neither  is  there  anything 
in  the  nature  of  things  obliging  John  Brown  to  recog- 
nize the  right  of  John  ^Yhite  to  a  particular  piece  of 
land.  What  the  natural  law  and  natural  justice 
obliges  Brown  to  respect  is  White's  right  to  some  private 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Lador  Union       111 

propertj",  and  through  the  contingent  fact  of  first 
occupancy  this  general  right  has  been  transformed  into 
the  particular  right  in  question.  Similarly,  the  right 
of  Jolm  Smith  to  the  private  j)roperty  that  is  necessary 
for  reasonable  life  has  been  transformed  into  the  right 
to  a  particular  job.  Both  rights  are  finally  determined 
and  in  a  sense  croateil  by  contingent  facts,  which  derive 
their  entire  moral  and  juridical  value  from  the  cir- 
cumstance that  they  afford  a  reasonable  method  of 
concreting  and  safeguarding  individual  rights. 

Hasty  and  unqualified  denials  of  the  right  to  a  job 
are  usually  based  on  the  assumption  that  a  contract 
cannot  give  rise  to  any  obligation  of  justice  that  is  not 
expressly  set  down  in  the  contract  it.self.  If  tliis 
theory  were  true,  the  employer  would  be  bound  to  pay 
a  living  wage  only  when  he  had  agreed  to  do  so.  The 
fact  is  that  special  relations — mere  propinquity  of 
various  kinds — create  sj)ecial  obligations,  not  merely  of 
charity,  but  of  j^istice.  .\mericans  have  duties  of 
justice  to  one  another  that  they  do  not  owe  to  foreigners. 
Brown  is  obliged  to  recogni/e  White's  right  to  a  definite 
portion  of  a  newly  discovered  territory  because  the 
latter  is  already  in  possession,  but  he  may  take  any 
other  jjart  of  the  land  that  he  choo.ses,  regardless  of 
the  wishes  of  Green,  who  has  not  yet  arrived;  Jones  is 
obliged  to  protect  Smith's  right  to  a  decent  living  by 
paying  him  a  living  wage,  but  he  is  not  obliged  to  do 
likewise  with  respect  to  Johnson,  who  is  not  in  his 
employ.  In  the  use  of  his  faculties  and  of  the  goods  of 
the  earth,  every  man  is  bound  in  justice  to  respect 


112  TiiK  Church  and  Socialism 

the  riglits  of  every  otlier  living  soul,  which  means  in 
the  concrete  relations  of  life,  not  that  lie  is  to  concern 
himself  about  the  rights  of  all  mankind  in  precisely 
the  same  degree — to  refrain,  for  example,  from  occujjy- 
ing  a  tract  of  land  hccaiisc  somewhere  on  the  globe 
there  exists  a  fellow-man  whose  property  rights  are 
unreali/ed — but  it  means  that  he  is  to  give  special 
attention  to  the  claims  of  those  with  whom  he  comes 
into  immediate  contact,  and  whose  rights,  consequently, 
are  more  directly  afToctcd  and  more  likely  to  be  violated 
by  his  conduct.  Propinquity  in  a  hundred  ways 
creates,  fixes  and  limits  men's  concrete  rights  because 
only  in  this  way  can  indeterminate  and  conflicting 
claims  be  reconciled.  The  reasonable  conclu.sion  from 
this  long  discussion  seems  to  be  that  men  who  are 
performing  their  tasks  efliciently  aiul  to  whom  dis- 
charge will  bring  very  grave  inconvenience  have  a 
right  to  their  jobs  that  dilfers  in  degree  only  from  the 
right  to  a  living  wage  and  tlie  right  to  land  because  of 
first  occui)ancy. 

From  this  i)rincii)le  it  follows  that  the  employer  has 
a  corresponding  right  to  the  services  of  his  employes 
as  long  as  he  treats  them  justly.  They  do  him  an 
injustice  if  they  leave  him  without  a  reasonable  cause. 
A  sufficient  reason  would  be,  for  example,  the  desire 
to  remove  to  another  local  ty,  or  to  get  better  wa^cs  at 
some  other  kind  of  work.  In  large  establisln.ents, 
however,  changes  of  this  nature  would  usually  l)c  made 
by  the  men  individually  and  at  difTerent  times,  and 
consequently  would  not  cause  the  employer  serious 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       113 

inconvenience.  It  very  seMom  happens  tliat  the  entire 
group  of  men  in  a  given  business  quit  their  employer  in 
a  body  with  a  view  to  getting  employment  elsewhere. 
Almost  always  their  intention  is  to  get  back  the  old 
jobs  when  tliey  sl^all  have  secured  some  advantage. 
Assuming  that  tlicy  have  no  just  grievance,  the  loss  in- 
flicted on  the  employer  by  this  interruption  of  work  will 
in  itself  constitute  an  act  of  injustice.  The  reason 
that  the  emjjloyer  has,  within  tl  e  limits  indicated,  a 
right  to  the  continued  services  of  his  men  is  precisely 
the  same  as  tl  at  on  which  rests  tl  e  right  of  employes, 
also  within  due  limits,  to  tleir  jobs,  nan^ely,  tl  e  right 
to  the  requisites  of  reasonable  living,  as  modified  by 
the  facts  of  relationship  ard  environment.  In  view 
of  these  considerations  it  would  seem  tl  at  Carroll  D. 
Wright  v.as  mistaken  wl  en  l.e  declared,  ^\ith  reference 
to  a  miner  who  had  been  wantonly  disci  arged,  that 
emi)loyes  lave  not  only  a  legal  but  a  moral  right  to 
quit  ^\ork  whenever  tl  ey  cl  oose,  and  t!  at  tl  e  employer 
enjoys  the  corresjionding  right  arbitrarily  to  dismiss. 

The  second  assimiption  ui)on  which  strikers  some- 
times seem  to  base  a  rigl  t  to  use  violence  is  tl  e  right 
to  just  conditions  of  employment.  We  have  said  that 
this  right  could  exist  even  in  tl  e  al  sence  of  tl  e  right 
to  a  job.  But  the  question  naturally  arises,  and  is  in 
fact  often  asked:  How  can  tl.is  right,  wl  ich  is  in  a 
general  way  valid,  have  any  bearing  on  the  positions 
that  the  strikers  have  vacated,  or  affect  in  any  way  a 
man  who  is  no  longer  their  employer.'  They  must 
try   to   secure   their   rights   in   a   wage  contract    with 


114  The  Ciiuhch  and  Socialism 

someone  else,  since  their  former  master  lias  no  further 
relations  with  nor  ohli^'ations  to  them.  The  answer 
to  this  presentation  of  the  matter  is  that  it  is  too  simple, 
too  theoret'cal  to  represent  the  facts  of  actual  life. 
Few,  indeed,  are  the  str'kes  in  which  there  is  such  a 
complete  severance  of  the  old  wage  relations.  Even 
in  the  case  of  strikes  that  fail  the  great  majority  of  the 
workers  involved  usually  go  back  to  their  former 
j)laces.  New  men  are  not  taken  in  sufficient  numbers 
to  carrv'  on  the  work  alone,  and  not  all  of  them  are 
retained  i)ermanently.  Some  of  them,  indeed,  never 
intended  to  remain  beyond  the  strike  period,  nor  does 
the  emi)loyer  desire  them  any  longer.  These  are  the 
"professional  strike  breakers,"  men  of  great  animal 
courage  and  recklessness,  whose  character  and  ante- 
cedents make  them  unsuitable  as  i)ermanent  employes. 
Of  course  these  men  are  not  engaged  in  every  strike, 
nor  do  they  ever  form  more  than  a  small  minority  of 
those  taking  the  places  of  the  strikers.  At  any  rate, 
the  general  fact  is  tliat  both  employer  and  strikers 
fully  expect  that  the  great  majority  of  the  latter  will 
finally  get  back  their  old  jobs;  consequently  the  effort 
of  the  employer  is  in  the  concrete  an  attempt  to  comi)el 
the  men  to  return  to  work  on  his  terms.  If  these  terms 
are  unjust,  the  employer  and  those  who  cooperate 
with  him  by  taking  the  places  of  the  former  emi)loyes 
are  in  very  fact  engaged  in  an  attack  on  the  rights  of 
at  least  as  many  of  the  latter  as  will  resume  their  old 
jobs. 

In  these  cases,  and  a  fortiori  on  the  assumption  that 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       115 

the  men  have  a  right  to  their  places,  are  not  the  em- 
ployer and  the  new  workers  acting  tlie  part  of  unjust 
aggressors,  whom  it  is  licit,  within  due  limits,  to  resist 
by  force?     This  is  the  question  that  many  laborers 
seem  to  answer  in  the  affirmative.     The  Abbe  Pottier 
would  turn  the  problem  over  to  wiser  minds,  but  de- 
clares that  the  use  of  force  will  certainly  not  be  jus- 
tifiable unless  three  conditions  are  verified,   namely: 
that  there  be  no  less  objectionable  means  by  which  the 
strikers  can  obtain  justice;  that  this  particular  means 
be  efficacious,  and  that  the  good  to  be  derived  from  it 
be  great  and  certain  in  projjortion  to  tlie  evils  that  will 
ensue    ("De   Jure   et   Justitia,"    pp.    208,    209).     In 
America,    at    any    rate,    the    last    condition    is    never 
realized.     The  wrongs  endured  by  labor  are  insignificant 
when  compared  with  the  di.sorders  that  would  follow 
any  recognition  of  the  claim  that  violence  is  lawful  in 
justifiable  strikes.     That  the  state  does  not,  or  cannot, 
protect  the  laborer's  natural  right  to  a  living  wage, 
just  as  it  protects  his  right  to  .security  of  life,  limb  and 
property,  is  to  be  regretted,  but  the  private  use  of 
force  to  defend  the  former  would  bring  about  a  con- 
dition of  veritable  anarchy.     It  would  be  equivalent 
to  a  rebellion   against   existing  political   institutions, 
and  consequently  could  be  justified  only  in  the  con- 
ditions that  justify  rebellion.     Now,  conditions  of  this 
force  and  magnitude  are  most  certainly  not  created  by 
either  the  exactions  of  capital  or  the  sufferings  of  labor. 
Evils  of  equal  importance  are  tolerated  by  the  law  in 
every  civilized  society,  yet  no  one  maintains  that  they 


IIG  The  Church  axd  Socialism 

ouijht  to  he  abolished  hy  private  violence.  The  use  of 
it  to  redress  the  j^rievances  of  lahor  cannot  he  too 
severely  condemned. 

The  synij)athelic  .strike  is  of  two  kinds — ajrainst 
anotlicr  employer  tlian  the  one  concerned  in  the  original 
dispute,  or  against  the  latter  hy  a  section  of  his  em- 
ployes havin<;  no  personal  grievance.  An  example  of 
the  first  occurs  when  hrickmakers  quit  work  because 
their  employer  persists  in  furnishing  material  to  a 
building  contractor  who.se  men  are  on  strike.  Their 
sole  purpose  is  to  emharra.ss  tie  contractor  and  compel 
him  to  concctle  the  demands  of  his  own  employes. 
It  is,  of  course,  clear  that  the  hrickmakers  have  com- 
mitted an  act  of  injustice  if  they  have  violated  a 
contract  requiring  them  to  remain  at  work  for  a  definite 
period.  Even  in  the  absence  of  any  contract,  their 
action  will  lx»,  generally  speaking,  contrary  to  the  law 
of  charity  and  likewise  contrary  to  justice.  It  is  in 
violation  of  charity  because  it  shows  a  want  of  Christian 
consideration  for  tie  Mclfarc  of  the  innocent  employer, 
and  it  sins  against  justice  because  it  inflicts  upon  him  a 
grave  loss  without  sufficient  reason.  As  stated  above, 
employer  and  employe  are  too  intimately  dei)endent 
upon  each  other  in  the  realization  of  their  natural 
rights  to  make  arbitrary  severance  of  their  relations 
consistent  with  justice.  Employes  have  no  right  to 
cause  their  employer  to  suffer  on  behalf  of  men  who  are 
mistreated  by  some  one  else.  No  doubt  there  are 
extreme  cases  in  which  the  outside  employer  is  bound 
in  charity  to  assist  strikers  by  refraining  from  doing 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       117 

business  with  the  man  against  whom  they  have  struck, 
but  these  are  rare.  On  the  other  hand,  when  the  sym- 
path.etic  strike  afTects  only  the  enij)loyer  concerned  in 
the  original  strike,  it  will  sometimes  be  not  merely 
licit,  but  laudable.  For  example,  if  the  "common 
laborers"  in  a  business  have  quit  work  on  account  of 
oppressive  conditions,  the  skilled  workers  might  do  a 
pood  action  by  striking  on  behalf  of  their  fellow- 
employes.  The  obligations  owed  by  the  skilled  men 
to  their  employer  would  yield  before  the  claims  of  the 
laborers  whom  he  is  treating  unjustly.  Their  [position 
is  analogous  to  that  of  one  nation  extending  aid  to 
another  in  resisting  the  unjust  aggressions  of  a  third. 
The  case  of  France  assisting  the  American  colonists 
to  throw  off  the  yoke  of  England  furnishes  a  good 
example.  The  obligation  of  remaining  at  peace  with 
the  oppressive  nation  does  not  extend  so  far  as  to  render 
illicit  all  sympathetic  action.  Similarly,  a  disinterested 
spectator  may  come  to  the  relief  of  a  \\eak  man  who 
is  suffering  at  the  hands  of  a  strong  one.  The  case 
for  the  sympathetic  strike  becomes  clearer  when  we 
remember  that  a  single  labor  union  frequently  includes 
men  performing  very  dissimilar  tasks.  They  agree  to 
act  as  a  unit  in  defending  not  only  the  rights  and  in- 
terests of  the  whole  body,  but  those  of  evjery  section 
of  it.  Hence  a  strike  of  all  the  employes  of  a  given 
employer  may  be  called  to  redress  the  grievances  of  a 
small  proportion.  If  the  cause  is  a  just  one,  this 
action  will  usually  be  lawful  and  frequently  commend- 
able; for  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  evident  that  only 


lis  The  rnrucii  and  Socialism 

by  this  means  can  the  weaker  laborers,  tlie  great  army 
of  tlie  nnskilled,  obtain  adequate  protection. 

2.  The  Boycott. — Althon^di  the  boycott  is  usually 
begun  on  the  occasion  of  a  strike,  it  is  frequently  con- 
tinued long  after  the  strike  has  failed.  It  seems, 
therefore,  worthy  of  a  place  among  the  labor  union's 
primary  methods.  In  essence  it  c*onsists  of  a  refusal  to 
have  business  or  social  intercourse  with  a  certain  person 
or  jjcrsons.  If  the  cause  on  behalf  of  which  it  is  in- 
stituted is  just,  it  will,  within  due  limits,  likewise  be 
just,  provided  that  it  is  used  solely  against  those  who 
are  acting  unjustly.  A  distinguished  Catluilic  })rclntc 
recommended  a  boycott  some  years  ago  when,  in  a 
sermon  in  his  Cathedral,  he  asked  the  people  not 
to  patronize  clothing  manufacturers  who  had  their 
goods  made  in  "sweat  shops."  This  would  be  a  boy- 
cott entirely  unconnected  with  a  strike,  and  it  would  be 
justifiable  in  view  of  the  intolerable  conditions  that  he 
wished  to  remove.  But  the  boycott  nmst  always  be 
kept  within  the  limits  of  fairness  and  charity.  It  must 
be  free  from  all  violence  and  threats  of  violence,  and 
it  must  not  be  carried  so  far  as  to  deny  to  the  boy- 
cotted what  the  theologians  call  the  "  conwiunia 
siyna  charitatis.''  By  this  phrase  are  meant  those 
social  acts  that  are  dictated  by  the  most  fundamental 
of  human  relations — those  manifestations  and  tokens 
of  common  humanity  which  man  owes  to  his  fellows, 
even  to  his  deadliest  enemy,  from  the  simple  fact  that 
they  are  his  fellows.  Hence  the  boycott  is  carried  to 
immoral  lengths  when  it  comprises  a  refusal  to  give  or 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uxion       119 

to  sell  the  necessaries  of  life,  or  any  other  action  of 
equivalent  harshness.  With  these  reservations,  and 
in  a  just  cause,  the  boycott  may  become  licit  both 
against  the  unjust  employer  and  against  the  work- 
ingmen  who  will  not  strike  or  who  take  the  strikers' 
places.  Lehmkuhl  says  that  laborers  who  are  con- 
tending for  a  living  wage  may  use  moral  force 
against  workers  that  refuse  to  cooperate  with  them,  to 
the  extent  of  denying  to  the  latter  all  excei>t  the  funda- 
mental forms  of  intercourse  above  described  ("  Theologia 
Moralis,"  vol.  i,  no.  1110).  Mueller  lays  down  the 
same  principle  ("Theologia  Moralis,"  vol.  ii,  p.  594, 
8th  edition). 

This  is  the  "primary"  boycott.  There  is  another 
form,  called  by  the  Anthracite  Coal  Strike  Commission 
the  "secondary"  boycott,  and  by  the  United  States 
Industrial  Commission  the  "compound"  boycott, 
which  consists  in  a  refusal  of  intercourse  with  innocent 
third  j)ersons  who  are  unwilling  to  join  in  the  primary 
boycott.  This  form  has  been  condemned  by  both  of 
the  bodies  just  mentioned,  and  rightly,  for  in  all 
except  extreme  cases  it  constitutes  an  offense  against 
Christian  charity.  To  be  sure,  men  may  licitly  per- 
suade or  try  to  persuade  outsiders  to  assist  them  in  a 
just  boycott,  but  they  go  to  an  immoral  excess  when 
they  unite  to  inflict  inconvenience — often  grave  in- 
convenience— on  those  who  refuse  to  be  jjcrsuaded. 
This  is  the  general  rule;  it  is  not  denied  that  there  may 
occur  instances  in  which  the  obligation  of  disinterested 
persons  to  join  in  a  laudable  boycott  would  become  so 


\ 


120  The  Church  and  Socialism 

grave  and  direct  as  to  render  tliem  justly  liable  to  tlie 
penalty  of  being  tlieinselvcs  boycotted  ^\llen  tliey  fail 
to  discharge  this  obligation.  The  sweat  shops,  for 
exanij)]c,  to  ^\hich  reference  vas  made  above, 
might  possibly  become  so  degrading  that  the  buyers  of 
clothing  would  do  right  to  withhold  their  patronage  not 
only  from  the  guilty  manufacturers,  but  even  from 
merchants  who  persisted  in  handling  the  sweat-shop 
goods.  Cases  of  such  gravity  could,  of  course,  occur 
but  seldom.  Moreover,  when  the  utmost  that  the 
moral  law  will  allow  has  been  said  in  defense  of  the 
boycott,  one  all-important  consideration  remains, 
namely,  that  it  is.  like  the  strike,  a  dangerous  and  ex- 
treme method,  should  be  emi)loyctI  oidy  as  a  last  re- 
source, and  then  only  with  the  greatest  caution. 

3.  The  *' Closed  Shop."— This  phrase  refers  to  the 
unionist  policy  of  refusing  to  work  with  non-unionists. 
The  "shop,"  that  is  to  say,  any  establishment  in  which 
the  union  has  got  a  foothold,  is  to  be  "closed"  to  all 
except  the  union's  members,  not  "oi)en"  to  all  comers. 
The  union  wishes  to  organize  all  the  workers  in  a 
trade,  so  that  it  will  be  in  a  better  position  to  bargain 
with  the  employer.  If  this  motive  is  not  justifiable, 
the  unionists,  it  is  evident,  sin  against  charity  by 
attempting  such  compulsion  toward  their  fellow- 
lal)orers.  They  offerd  against  the  rule  which  requires 
men  to  do  unto  each  other  as  they  would  be  done  by — 
to  treat  one  another  as  brothers.  The  unionist  main- 
'aiiis  that  the  ends  that  he  seeks  to  attain  are  amply 
sufficient  to  justify  the  policy  of  the  "closed  shop." 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uniox       l^l 

Workinpmen  who  refuse  to  join  the  union  and  yet 
work  side  by  side  \vith  its  members  share  tlie  advan- 
tages that  the  union  makes  possible.  They  desire  to 
reap  where  they  have  not  sown.  They,  furthermore, 
frequently  render  impossible  collective  bargains  between 
the  union  on  one  side  and  the  emi)loyer  on  the  other, 
because  they  are  not  amenable  to  union  discipline. 
It  is  not  fair  that  the  union  should  be  held  responsible 
for  the  fidelity  of  men  over  whom  it  can  have  no  effect- 
ive control.  Finally,  the  "open  shop"  is  impossible, 
since  it  tends  inevitably  to  liecomc  either  all  union  or 
all  non-union.  There  is  constant  bickering  and  ill 
feeling  between  the  two  classes,  and,  worst  of  all,  the 
non-unionist  too  frequently  allows  the  employer  to 
use  him  as  a  lever  to  lo\\cr  the  conditions  of  the  whole 
establishment  or  group.  In  a  word,  the  demand  that 
all  shall  join  the  union  is  made  in  the  interests  of  self- 
protection.  Now  any  one  of  these  reasons  would 
sometimes  be  sufficient  to  ai)solve  the  union  from 
uncharitableness  in  its  jjolicy  of  the  "closed  slu){>." 
To  what  extent  they  are  realized  in  the  industrial  world 
need  not  now  be  discussed,  but  it  seems  quite  probable 
that  one  or  more  of  them  finds  occasional  aj)plica- 
tion.  We  may  say  in  a  general  way  that  the  cause  of 
unionism,  which  is  the  cause  of  labor,  renders  more  or 
less  necessary  the  organization  of  all  workers.  Still 
less  does  the  method  in  question  seem  to  be  contrary 
to  justice.  Neither  employer  nor  non-unionist  can 
show  that  any  right  of  his  is  violated  by  the  mere  fact 
that    the   unionist   refuses   to   work   with    the   latter. 


122  TiiK  CiiuKcii  AND  Socialism 

\Vlierc  the  union  is  very  stronfi,  it  is  quite  possible  that 
this  action  will  de[)rive  the  non-unioiust  of  all  oppor- 
tunity of  working,  and  consequently  of  earninj;  a  living. 
If,  indeed,  the  refusal  of  the  unionist  were  absolute — 
if  he  were  to  say  to  the  non-unionist:  "In  no  circum- 
stances will  I  work  with  you,"  he  would  undoubtetily 
sin  against  justice.  He  would  violate  the  non-unionist's 
right  to  live  from  the  bounty  of  the  earth,  just  as  truly 
and  as  efTectually  as  the  owner  of  an  island  who  should 
drive  a  shipwrecked  voyager  into  the  sea.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  unionist  docs  nothing  of  this  kind;  his 
refusal  is  conditional;  he  says  in  elTcct  that  if  the  non- 
unionist  will  not  join  the  organization  lie  shall  not 
work,  but  this  condition  is  sometimes  reasonable. 
Then,  even  though  the  "closed  si  op"  policy  should 
deprive  the  non-unionist  of  all  opportunity  to  work,  the 
blame,  so  far  as  justice  is  concerned,  should  be  placed 
on  his  own  perverse  will. 

These  are  the  general  conclusions.  They  are  evi- 
dently subject  to  some  qualifications.  For  there  are 
laborers  wliose  unwillingness  to  join  the  union  is  due 
to  weighty  reasons  of  personal  inconvenience,  and  not 
merely  to  a  selfish  desire  to  escape  the  burdens  of 
unionism  or  to  compete  unfairly  with  the  unionist. 
Again,  it  seems  probable  that  many  of  the  unions,  as 
at  present  constituted  and  led,  cannot  be  trusted  to 
administer  moderately  and  equitably  the  immense 
power  that  comes  from  complete  unionization.  This, 
how^ever,  is  a  question  more  of  expediency  than  of 
rights.     Undoubtedly  the  employer  has  the  right  to 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uxiox        123 

oppose  the  "closed  shop"  so  long  as  his  action  does  not 
tend  to  force  unjust  conditions  upon  the  laborer. 
Witliin  tiie  same  limits  t!ie  non-unionist  has  the  right 
to  keep  himself  aloof  from  the  organization.  The 
rights  of  all  three,  the  employer,  the  non-unionist 
and  the  unionist,  in  this  matter  are  not  absolute,  like 
the  right  to  live,  but  are  conditioned,  first,  by  the  con- 
sent of  the  other  party  whom  it  is  desired  to  bring  into 
the  contract,  and,  second,  by  the  efTects  that  the 
intended  action  will  have  on  the  rights  of  others. 
These  several  rights  have  of  late  been  the  subject  of 
much  loose  thinking  and  looser  si)caking.  The  legal 
and  the  moral  rights  of  the  non-unionist  have  been 
hopelessly  confused.  But,  as  John  Mitchell  i)ointed 
out  a  few  years  ago,  the  qiicstion  is  not  legal  but 
ethical;  for  there  is  no  law  on  our  statute  books 
which  forbids  unionists  to  refuse  to  work  ^\ith  non- 
unionists,  or  to  attcm{)t  by  j)eaceable  means  to  unionize 
any  shop  or  trade.  "The  rights  guaranteed  to  the 
non-unionist  by  the  Constitution,"  which  are  so  in- 
dignantly and  patriotically  i)roclaimcd,  have  absolutely 
nothing  to  do  with  this  question,  ^ome  of  the  at- 
tempts to  set  forth  the  moral  rights  involved  are  equally 
absurd.  \  cry  decidedly,  the  non-unionist  has  not 
the  right  to  work  when,  where,  how  and  for  whom  he 
pleases,  and  even  if  he  had,  it  would  not  give  him  the 
right  to  compel  the  unionist  to  work  beside  him.  A 
man  has  no  more  right  to  work  when,  where,  how  and 
for  whom  he  pleases  than  he  has  to  fire  off  his  pistol 
when,  where,  how  and  at  whom  Le  pleases.     No  man 


124  The  Ciilhch  and  Socialism 

lias  "a  rifjlit  to  do  ulint  Ic  pleases  Nvitli  Ms  o\vn" — 
neither  with  h.is  life,  nor  his  faculties,  nor  his  property, 
nor  his  labor,  nor  anything  that  is  his.  The  non- 
unionist  has  no  ri^ht  to  ^^ork  for  John  Jones  if  the  latter 
does  not  ^visll  to  hire  him,  nor,  in  general,  to  voik 
in  any  circumstances  involving  the  consent  of  others 
without  having  first  ohtained  such  consent/  If  one 
were  to  take  seriously  some  of  the  hysterical  denuncia- 
tions of  the  "closed  shoj),"  one  might  he  tempted  to 
infer  that  this  i)olicy  uas  entirely  new  to  the  world  and 
in  defiance  of  all  the  lessons  and  precedents  of  history. 
The  truth  is  that  it  was  enforced  for  centuries  hy  the 
trade  and  craft  guilds  throughout  \^'estern  Europe. 
Speaking  of  the  charters  obtained  by  the  English  craft 
guilds  from  Henry  II.  Ashley  says:  "The  only  definite 
provision  was  that  no  one  within  the  town  (sometimes 
within  the  district)  should  follow  the  craft  unless  he 
belonged  to  the  guild.  The  right  to  force  all  other 
craftsmen  to  join  the  organization — /unft-zwang,  as 
the  German  writers  call  it — carried  with  it  the  right  to 
impose  conditions,  to  exercise  some  sort  of  suj^ervision 
over  those  who  joined"  ("English  Economic  History," 
vol.  i,  p.  8'2).  Imagine  a  modern  labor  union,  say  the 
Amalgamated  Association  of  Street  Railway  Workers, 
clothed  with  this  legal  privilege!  The  non-unionist 
would  be  prevented  not  merely  by  the  refusal  of  the 
unionist  to  work  with  him,  but  by  the  law  of  the  land, 
from  securing  employment  on  any  street  railway  in 
the  country  unless  he  became  a  member  of  the  union. 
Yet  this  was  the  arrangement  that  arose  and  flourished 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union        12.5 

under  the  guidance  and  encouragement  of  the  Catholic 
Church.  And  it  \vas  riglit.  In  those  days  men  be- 
Heved  in  tlie  reign  of  law,  in  the  doctrine  of  live  and 
let  live,  in  security  of  occupation  for  the  honest  worker, 
in  preventing  the  selfish  and  irresj)onsihle  worker  from 
injuring  his  fellows;  and  they  knew  nothing  of  that 
insane  individualism  that  ends  logically  in  the  crushing 
out  of  the  weak  and  the  aggrandizement  of  the  strong. 
4.  The  liinitalion  of  Output. — Tlie  unions  are  not 
infrequently  accused  of  fixing  an  arbitrary  limit  to 
the  amount  of  work  \>ct  day  that  their  members  shall 
do  or  allow  to  be  done  in  a  given  establishment.  While 
this  practice  is  not  formally  recognized  or  defended, 
there  is  a  great  deal  of  evidence  teiuling  to  show  that  it 
is  more  general  than  labor  leaders  seem  willing  to 
acknowledge.  Be  this  as  it  may,  the  morality  of 
limiting  a  man's  outi)ut  <lei)ends  entirely  on  the  point 
at  which  the  limit  is  placed.  Indiscriminate  condem- 
nation of  this  method  is  just  as  unreasonable  as  in- 
discriminate condemnation  of  the  strike,  the  boj'cott  or 
the  "closed  shop."  The  unionist  is  charged  with 
preventing  the  more  efficient  workmen  from  producing 
a  greater  amount  than  those  of  medium  ability  and 
with  refusing  to  allow  machinery  to  l)e  oj>erated  at  its 
highest  capacity.  Ilis  reply  is  that  the  exceptional 
man  is  welcome  to  turn  out  all  the  work  that  he  jjleases, 
and  to  get  all  the  wages  that  he  can,  provided  that  his 
output  is  not  made  the  standard  for  the  majority. 
He  complains  that  in  a  given  trade,  say  bricklaying,  the 
man  of  exceptional  skill  and  quickness  is  often  set  as  a 


126  The  Church  and  Socialism 

pacemaker.  To  equal  what  is  for  liim  an  ordinary 
rate  of  si>ee(J,  tie  efforts  of  all  tie  otl.ers  y>'\\\  have  to 
be  ext"ao;(Jinary.  This  is  manifestly  unfair.  Work- 
m.en  of  ave  a^e  capacity — tl  at  is,  tl  e  overwl-.elming 
majority — toiling  clay  after  clay,  should  not  be  required 
to  perform  more  than  an  a\eia;,'c,  normal  day's  vork. 
Tl:cy  ought  not  to  be  expected  to  \vork  continuously  at 
the  liigl  est  i)itch  of  exertion  of  which  tl  ey  are  capable, 
for  tliis  is  to  violate  the  laws  and  standards  of  nature. 
Man's  fullest  and  most  intense  exeitions  \\ere  intended 
as  a  reserve  for  s|)ecial  en'.ergeucies,  and  the  attempt  to 
put  them  forth  continuously  n.cans  disease  and  pre- 
mature decay.  It  is  consequently  inhuman  and 
imn;o;al.  By  all  means  let  tie  exceptional  man  pro- 
duce more  and  rec*eive  moie  tl  an  tie  others,  but  let 
him  not  be  constituted  the  standard  to  which  they  are 
comjclled  to  conform. 

Tie  unionist  will  sometimes  admit  that  he  hinders 
the  most  productive  use  of  machinery,  but  his  dcfen.se 
is  that  machines  are  frecpiently  run  at  a  sj^eed  that 
demands  unreasonable  activity  and  an  unhcalthful 
intensity  of  effort.  This  claim  is  true  to  a  greater 
extent  than  most  persons  susjxct.  "Terhaps  the  most 
significant  feature  of  modern  industry  is  the  increasing 
intensity  of  exertion,  owing  to  the  introduction  of 
machinery  and  the  minute  division  of  labor.  .  .  . 
The  result  is  that  the  trade  life  of  the  workingman  has 
been  reduced  in  many  industries"  ("Final  Report  of 
United  States  Industrial  Commission,"  p.  733).  "1 
have  seen   in   a  New   England  factory,"   says  John 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       127 

Graham  Brooks,  "a  machine  working  with  such  rapidity 
as  to  excite  wonder  that  anyone  could  be  induced  to 
follow  it  nine  hours  a  day.  Upon  irquiry  the  foreman 
told  me  how  it  had  been  manapcd.  'This  invention,' 
he  said,  *is  hardly  six  months  old;  we  saw  that  it  would 
do  so  much  more  work  that  we  had  to  be  very  careful 
in  introducing  it.  We  picked  the  man  you  see  on  it 
because  he  is  one  of  our  fastest.  We  found  out  what 
it  could  do  before  we  put  it  into  tl:c  room.  Now  they 
will  all  .see  what  it  ^\ill  turn  out  when  it  is  properly 
run.'  *Proi)erly  run'  meant  to  him  run  at  its  very 
highest  si)ccd.  This  was  tlie  standard  pressure  to 
which  all  who  worked  it  must  submit"  ("The  i^ocial 
Unrest,"  p.  191).  In  the  chapter  from  which  this 
extract  is  taken  there  is  a  mass  of  evider  ce  suflcient 
to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  running  machinery  at 
such  a  high  speed  as  to  den^ar.d  from  the  tender  the 
fullest  exertion  and  inter.sity  of  which  he  is  capable  is 
the  settled  policy  of  a  very  large  section  of  tie  owners 
of  machinery.  As  Dr.  Cunningham  puts  it:  "There 
is  a  temptatrn  to  treat  the  machine  as  the  main 
element  in  production  and  to  make  it  the  measure  of 
what  man  ought  to  do  instead  of  regarding  tlie  man  as 
the  first  consideration  and  the  machine  as  the  instru- 
ment which  helps  him"  ("Th.e  Use  and  Abuse  of 
Money,"  p.  111).  The  result  is  that  the  machine 
tenders  are  worn  out,  useless,  unable  to  retain  their 
places  at  fifty  and  not  unfrequently  at  forty-five. 
If  the  trade  union  or  any  other  lawful  social  force  can 
"restrict  output"  suiEciently  to  prevent  this  process 


his  Tut:  CiiLU(ii  AND  Socialism 

of  slow  murder,  it  will  vindicate  tlie  moral  law  and 
confer  a  benefit  uj)on  society  that  uill  le  felt  not  nierely 
to<iay  hut  for  all  future  a^'es.  Tlie  i)ur])ose  of  ma- 
chinery is  to  improve  life,  not  to  destroy  it.  and  the 
unionist  is  ri^ht  in  so  far  as  he  insists  tliat  it  shall  not  he 
perverted  from  its  proi)er  function.  In  one  word,  re- 
striction of  output  is  rii,'ht  when  it  strives  to  protect  the 
worker  against  being  comjwilcd  to  perform  more  than 
a  normal  day's  work;  when  it  goes  beyond  this  point 
it  is  unjustifiable  and  dishonest. 

5.  lite  Limitation  of  Apprentices. — Emj)loyers  of 
skilled  labor  often  complain  that  the  unions  will  not 
allow  them  to  train  as  many  apprentices  as  the  trade 
requires.  The  unionist  rei>lies:  "They  ask  us  to  put  in 
more  apprentices  when  there  is  no  shortage  of  work- 
men, wlien  we  can  furnish  first-rate  men  who  are  now 
out  of  work.  That  would  mean  that  we  were  to  l.elp 
train  new  men  to  compete  with  our  own  U'cmbers  out 
of  work"  ("The  Social  I  nrest,"  p.  5).  The  issue  here 
drawn  seems  to  be  one  of  fact:  Do  or  do  not  the  unions 
allow  a  sufKcient  number  of  apprentices  to  be  trained 
to  meet  the  demand?  If  we  look  a  little  deei)er, 
however,  we  shall  find  that  we  are  confronted  by  two 
incomplete  and  therefore  inaccurate  statements  of  the 
same  fact.  The  employer's  real  burden  of  complaint 
in  some  cases  is  that  he  cannot  pet  enough  apprentices 
to  supply  the  demand  that  would  exist  if  wages  were 
lower,  and  wages  would  be  lower  if  he  could  increase 
the  supply.  This  contingency  the  unionist  recognizes, 
fears  and  tries  to  prevent  by  shutting  out  some  of  those 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       129 

who  wish  to  enter  the  trade.  He  is  probably  quite 
willing  to  admit  them  in  numbers  suflficient  to  meet  the 
demand  at  current  wajjes,  or  at  the  higher  waj^e  to 
which  he  thinks  he  is  entitled.  Tiie  fundamental 
difference,  then,  between  him  and  the  employer  in  this 
matter  seems  to  be  one  of  wapcs.  Wh.at,  then,  is  to 
be  said  concernin;.:  the  morality  of  the  practice.^ 
Conformably  to  his  theory  that  the  skilled  laborer  has 
a  ri^ht  to  the  trade  that  he  has  learned,  the  Abl)e 
Naudet  nuiiiitains  that  the  limitation  of  apprentices 
should  be  enforced  by  law  (**Proj»ricte,  Cai)ital,  et 
Travail,"  pp.  'JH8,  389).  So  far  as  the  relations  between 
himself  and  his  employer  are  concerned,  it  would  seem 
that  the  unionist  is  truilty  of  no  injustice  or  un(liarit\- 
in  keeping  down  tlie  number  of  apprentices,  j)rovided 
they  are  still  sufhcient  to  sui)j)ly  the  needs  of  the  trade 
at  fair  wa^'es.  In  other  words,  the  limitation  should 
not  go  so  far  as  to  create  a  scarcity  that  would  cause 
wages  to  become  extortionate. 

There  is,  however,  another  asj)ect  of  the  question 
besides  the  relations  between  emjjloyer  and  employe. 
The  more  diflicult  the  entrance  to  the  higher  trades 
the  greater  are  the  disadvantages  endured  by  the  great 
mass  having  no  special  skill — "the  common  laborers." 
"One  result  of  the  organization  of  the  skilled  trades," 
says  Mr.  J.  A.  Hobson,  "has  been  to  render  it  more 
difficult  for  outsiders  to  equip  themselves  for  effective 
competition  in  a  skilled  trade.  To  some  extent,  at 
any  rate,  the  skilled  unions  have  limited  the  labor 
market  in  their  trade.     The  inevitable  result  of  this 


l')0  The  Chliuii  and  Socialism 

has  })ocn  to  iraiiitain  a  coiilinral  ^rlut  in  tl  c  low-skilIc<l 
labor  market"  ("The  Prol)!cin  of  tic  rneinployed," 
p.  20),  This  glut  vould  he  relieved  to  sone  extent  if 
the  ctitranco  to  tlie  skilled  trades  vere  iinrestrictr<l. 
For  those  remaining  in  the  ranks  of  the  unskilled  \\ould 
not  l)c  ohiiped  to  eompcte  quite  so  sharply  with  one 
another.  And  those  wl;o  uerc  allo\\ed  to  move  up 
\\oidd  receive  a  c"onsideral)lc  hcncfit.  In  the  skilled 
o(ciij>ations  the  tctidei.cy  vouM,  of  course,  he  down- 
ward. l)ul  they  are  for  the  most  part  fairly  well  organ- 
ized and  pretty  well  able  to  take  care  of  themselves. 
Even  after  the  influx  of  memhcrs  consequent  on  the 
removal  of  restrictions  they  wotild  he  in  a  much  better 
IK)sition  than  the  great  hody  I  e!ow  tl  em.  It  is  the 
almost  complete  helplessness  of  tl  c  latter  that  nakes 
the  "hilior  (piestion"  so  threatening  and  so  difl  ciilt  of 
.solution.  'Ihe  skilled  workers,  as  a  rule.  re(ei\e  toler- 
alilc  justice,  and  do  not  constitute  a  serious  problem. 
In  view  of  these  facts  there  seerrs  to  he  an  obligation  of 
charity  forbiiidjug  the  skilled  workers  to  rerder  the 
elevation  of  their  less  fortunate  fellows  as  difhcult  as 
they  sometimes  do  by  the  limitation  of  api'rentices. 

6.  Tyranny  and  Di.shnnc^ly. — Tl.ese  features  of  the 
labor  movement  cannot  in  the  strict  sen.se  of  the  word 
be  called  methods,  but  they  I  ave  attracted  sufFcient 
attention  and  criticism  to  deserve  notice  in  any  treat- 
ment of  the  morality  of  union  [)racticcs  and  tendencies. 
.\  peculiarity  of  nuich  discussion  of  the  labor  union  is 
the  amount  of  denunciation  visited  upon  the  walking 
delegate.     lie  is  regarded  by  many  as  the  chief  cause 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       131 

of  labor  disturbances,  while  as  a  matter  of  fact  lie  is 
merely  the  rei)resentativc.  tie  business  apent,  as  he  is 
called  technically,  of  tl  e  union,  appointed  to  execute 
its  will,  not  clotl  ed  with  the  powers  of  an  autocrat. 
Only  in  rare  instances  has  he  the  power  of  his  own 
motion   to  declare  a  strike  or  inaugurate  any  other 
movement  of  similar  importance.     Generally  speaking, 
all   his  lar^'cr  acts,   tyrannical   or  otherwise,  are  the 
acts  of  the  men  whom  he  represents.     He  could  not 
long  retain  his  position  were  he  to  conduct  himself 
with  the  lordly  independence  and  indifTcrence  that  is 
sometimes  attributed  to  him.     "For  trade  unions  at 
large  in  the  United  States  the  walking  delegate  repre- 
sents the  opinion  and  will  of  his  union  more  closely 
than  most  Congressmen  represent  the  oi)inion  and  wdl 
of  their  constituents"  ("The  Social  Unrest,"  p.  151). 
And  he  is  absolutely  necessary  if  the  union  is  to  attain 
its  object  of  enabling  a  group  of  individuals  to  act  as  a 
unit  in  dealing  u  ith  their  employer.     To  eliminate  him 
would  be  to  eliminate  the  union.     This,  however,  does 
not  mean  that  some  of  the  petty  tyrannies  practiced 
both  by  him  and  the  privates  in  the  ranks  could  not 
consistently  with  the  welfare  of  the  union  be  abolished. 
In  the  manner  in  which  strikes  are  sometimes  called 
and  conducted;   in   the   reckless,   inconsiderate,   even 
cruel  use  of  the  boycott;  in  the  oppressive  enforc-ement 
of  the  "closed  shop"  jmlicy.  hardships  are  inflicted  on 
the  employer,  the  laborer  and  the  general  public  which 
cannot  be  adequately  described  except  as  mean  ad- 
vantages taken  of  temporary  helplessness.     Especially 


1S€  The  Chirch  and  Socialism 

is  this  true  of  tlie  innocent  third  party,  the  customer  or 
consumer,  wlio  is  dependent  hotli  upon  the  union  and 
the  employer.  Want  of  space  forhids  pivinp  instances 
of  such  petty  annoyances  and  injuries,  but  anyone 
who  has  come  into  actual  and  interested  contact  with 
the  disj)utes  hetwecn  lahor  and  capital  knows  that  they 
are  not  is()late.d  excej)lions.  It  is  a  question  not  of  any 
one  definite  method,  hut  of  a  reprchensihle  lial)it  <»f 
mind  and  will  which  finds  numerous  and  various  outlets 
for  practical  exi>ression.  The  \niionists  make  the  mis- 
take of  enforcing  a  too  rij^id  interpretation  of  their 
rights  in  circumstances  where  their  op|)onents  or  their 
innocent  dcj)cndents  are  i)eculiarly  unable  to  help 
themselves.  They — or  .some  of  them — should  try  to 
realize  that  even  in  war  certain  weai>ons  and  i)ractices 
are  tabooed  by  all  civilized  peoi)les;  that  the  use  of 
oppressive  tactics  by  the  emjjloyer  does  not  justify 
them  in  retaliatinfi  in  kind;  that,  in  the  words  of 
the  poet : 

It  is  excellent 
To  have  a  giant's  strength;  but  it  is  tyrannous 
To  use  it  like  a  giant. 

The  charge  of  dishonesty  is  directed  almost  entirely 
apain.st  the  leaders.  Those  who  make  tliis  accusation 
oftenest  could  not,  in  all  probability,  name  half  a 
dozen  among  all  the  union  leaders  in  the  United 
States.  It  is  safe  to  say  that  many  of  tlicm  have  in 
mind  only  one  man,  the  notorious  Sam  Parks.  Tl.c  fact 
seems  to  be  that  the  proportion  of  labor  leaders  who 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union*       183 

are  dishonest  is  smaller  tlian  tlie  proportion  of  dishonest 
politicians  or  dishonest   public  ofl  cials.     Tarks  vas, 
indeed,    both    unfaithful    to   his   fellow   unionists   and 
extortionate    in    his    dealing's    with    en\i)loyers.     He 
misused  the  funds  of  the  union,  called  strikes  with  a 
view  to  bcinj:  paid  for  dec!arin<;  them  off,  and  in  return 
for   bribes   allowed   employers    to   hire    non-unionists 
instead  of  unionists.     Vet  even  he  represented  the  will 
of  the  union,  inasnujch  as  the  majority  of  its  mcndiers 
were  not  sufliciently  vigilant  and  afr^ressive  to  depose 
him.     "How  was  it  i)ossible  for  such  a  man  to  control 
absolutely  his  thousands  of  iron  workers?"  asked  Ray 
Stannard  Baker  of  a  labor  leader,  and  pot  this  reply: 
"If  you  will  exi)lain  h.ow  Ooker  bossed  the  Demo- 
cratic party  of  New  York — a  party  full  of  honest  men — 
when  every  one  knew  he  was  grafting ;  how  he  collected 
money  from  the  wealthy  owners  of  the  street  railway 
comj>anies,  and  gas  comjjanies,  and  from  other  promi- 
nent business  men,  I  will  explain  how  Parks  gets  his  hold 
on  the  building  trades"  {McCIutcs  Ma'jazhie,  Novera- 
l)er.  l!)0.i).     There  is  no  reason  in  the  nature  of  things 
why  a  labor  leader  should  be  proof  against  the  temptation 
to  misuse  his  power  for  private  gain  any  more  than  there 
is  reason  to  expect  that  a  public  oflicial  will  always  be 
scrupulously    honest   and    faithful.     Especially    if,   as 
Mr.  Baker  has  shown  to  be  true  in  the  case  of  Parks, 
there  are  employers  who  prefer  a  dishonest  labor  leader. 
Mr.  Baker  maintains  that  some  employers,  particu- 
larly in  the  building  trades,  do  not  vn  ant  honest  walking 
delegates  any  more  than  they  want  honest  building 


1S4  The  Church  and  Socialism 

inspectors.  Tlicy  bribe  ti.e  latter  in  order  to  escape 
comj)Iiaiicc  ^\  itli  tie  c-ivil  law,  and  tlie  foriiier  in  order  to 
circumvent  their  agreements  ^vith  the  union  or  to 
secure  an  unfair  ad\antaj:e  over  a  rival  eni])lover. 
They  have  in<hiccd  hihor  leaders  to  su|)plant  with 
cheai)er  workers  the  men  whom  the  leaders  were  sworn 
to  serve,  and  to  foment  strikes  against  coin|)ctifors. 
Mr.  Baker  iiuikes  the  latter  char^'e  apainst  the  Fuller 
Construction  Company,  "the  trust  of  tlie  New  York 
huildin^  tra<ies,"  whose  huildinps  somehow  went  up 
without  interruption  durintj  the  hi^  IcK'kout  a  few 
years  ago.  ^^'alkinp  delegates  of  the  tyj)e  of  Parks  and 
Murj)hy  deserve  all  the  denunciation  that  they 
have  received,  but  it  must  be  remembered  that 
not  all  their  offenses  were  acts  of  brutal  extortion. 
They  made  other  dislionest  contracts  with  em- 
ployers— contracts  which  required  a  willing  bribe- 
giver as  well  as  a  bribe-taker.  If  the  case  of  these  men 
stood  on  a  bad  eminence  of  complete  isolation,  it  could 
be  dismissed  as  unwoithy  of  much  attention,  but  un- 
fortuiuilcly  it  seems  to  be  merely  one  in  a  system  tliat 
will  not  easily  or  quickly  disap[>ear.  It  is  not  reason- 
able to  exj)ect  that  men  who  will  bribe  a  public  oflicial 
should  hesitate  about  bribing  the  agent  of  a  labor 
union.  And,  as  already  noted,  we  ought  not  to  expect 
a  higher  grade  of  honesty  from  the  representatives  of 
labor  than  from  the  representatives  of  the  general 
public.  In  the  words  of  District  Attorney  Jerome: 
"This  corruption  in  the  labor  unions  is  merely  a 
reflection  of  what  we  find  in  public  life — and  this  cor- 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Un'ion       135 

ruption  in  public  life  is  merely  a  reflection  of  the  sordid- 

ness  of  private  life."  ,   ,     r  •      i 

7    Kvcessire  Demcimh.—k  large  number  of  the  friends 
of  labor  are  tempted  to  oppose  the  whole  labor  move- 
ment because  of  what  seem  to  theni  unreasonable  de- 
mands for  higher  v  ages  and  shorter  hours.     1  hey  com- 
plain that  tl;e  unions  very  fre(,uently  show  a  disposition 
to  take  all  that  they  can  pet,  regardless  of  considerations 
of  justice,  and  an  utter  indifTerenc-c  to  the  welfare  of 
the  consumer.     Now.  it  is  beyond  reasonable  doubt 
that  unfair  conditions  have  been  demanded  and  ob- 
tained bv  some  unionists.     For  just  as  there  is  a  wage 
that  is  too  low  to  be  e(iuitable.  .so  is  there  one  that  is  too 
high      Laborers  have  no  more  right  to  force  wages 
indeflnitelv  up  than  employers  have  a  right  to  force 
them  indelinitely  down.     \  cry  few  laborers  seem  to 
rcali/e  that  a  limit  to  the  material  advancement  of  the 
great  nuijoritv  of  them  has  been  fixed,  not  only  by 
justice,  but  bv  the  country's  resources,     hi  the  present 
state  of  the  arts  of  production  and  of  the  productiveness 
of  nature,  it  is  absolutely  impossible  that  all  American.s 
or  even   a   bare   majority,   should   be   provided   with 
annual  trips  to  Europe,  automobiles  or  palatial  dwell- 
ings; or  even  with  long  vacations,  a  horse  and  carriage 
and  a  piano.     After  the  primary  wants  of  all  had  been 
supplied-which  is  very  far  from  being  true  at  present 
-there  would  not  be  enough  of  these  secondary  goods 
to  go  round.     Li  the  most  equitable  scheme  of  distribu- 
tion practicable  they  would  have  to  be  reserved  for  a 
minority  comprising  two  classes:  those  who  could  make 


136  The  Church  and  Socialism 

the  best  use  of  such  superfluities,  and  those  whose  social 

services  are  so  iniiiortaiit  that  tlioy  can  dcniaiui  and 
receive  from  society  an  excc{)tio:!al  remuneration.  This 
is  not  to  imi)ly  that  all  who  at  present  enjoy  these 
thin;,'s  fall  into  either  of  these  classes.  ^A'e  are  not  now 
concerned  with  the  inequalities  of  the  existing  distri- 
bution, but  witii  the  indestructible  and  undeniable 
fact  that  the  physical  inii)ossii)inty  of  an  indefinite 
improvement  in  the  condition  of  the  mass  of  laborers 
renders  the  claim  to  such  advancement  ethically  invalid. 
Consequently  they  outrht  not  to  indul^'c  in  vain  exi)ec- 
tations  nor  talk  glibly  about  rights  that  have  no  foun 
dation  in  reality.  In  si)ite  of  these  general  truths  the 
difficulty  of  determining  the  upper  limit  of  fair  wages 
for  any  concrete  grouj)  of  laborers  is  so  great  as  to 
compel  a  jjrudent  moralist  to  pau.se  before  attempting 
to  estimate  it  in  dollars  and  cents.  All  fair-minded 
men  admit  that  the  laborer  has  a  right  to  a  wage  siifli- 
cient  to  maintain  himself  and  family  in  the  conditions 
of  a  comfortable,  reasonable  and  moral  life,  and  that 
this  mininuim  varies  for  different  clas.ses,  in  accordance 
with  the  nature  of  their  work  and  the  standard  of  life  to 
which  they  have  been  accustomed.  But  this  is  merely 
an  irreducible  moral  mininuim:  it  is  not  necessarily 
the  full  measure  of  comj)lete  justice.  To  deny  this  is  to 
assume  that  of  all  the  classes  of  the  population,  laborers 
only  have  not  the  right  to  use  their  power  of  entering 
into  advantageous  contracts — in  their  case,  wage  con- 
tracts— for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  a  higher  standard 
of  living.     This  position  would  scarcely  be  maintained 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       137 

by  any  moralist  of  authority.  Consequently  those 
persons  who  assert  tliat  the  unions  have  demanded 
more  than  is  just  would  probably  find  it  difficult  to 
prove  this  assertion  in  more  than  an  insignificant 
minority  of  instances.  And  this  minority  is  un- 
doubtedly smaller  in  proportion  than  the  number  of 
employers  who  receive  exce.ssive  interest  or  excessive 
profits. 

There  seems  to  be  a  larjie  amount  of  truth  in  the 
charpe  that  the  unions  are  frequently  indifferent  to  the 
welfare  of  the  consumer.  A  particularly  flagrant  tj-pe 
is  described  by  Ray  Stannard  Baker  in  McClure^s 
Magazine  for  September,  1903.  Certain  employers' 
and  employes'  associations  in  Chicago  entered  into 
an  agreement  which  prevented  the  laborers  concernctl 
from  working  for  anyone  who  was  not  a  member  of  the 
employers'  association.  On  the  other  hand,  the  em- 
ployers bound  themselves  not  to  hire  anyone  not  belong- 
ing to  the  association  of  laborers.  Tlie  result  was  a 
monopoly  more  thorough  than  any  combination  of 
laborers  alone  or  of  employers  alone.  And  they  seem 
to  have  used  their  power  to  exact  both  unfair  wages  and 
unfair  profits,  tie  excess  being  charged  to  the  con- 
sumer. Similar  combinations,  though  not  so  oppress- 
ive nor  so  strong,  exist  elsewhere.  And  yet  anyone 
wl.o  is  acquainted  v.ith  tie  ir.dustrial  history  of  the 
last  century  is  bound  to  acknowledge  that  the  consumer 
is  only  receiving  a  modicum  of  poetic  justice.  During 
the  first  tliree-quarters  of  the  nineteenth  century  the 
whole  organization   of  industry  was  directed   to  the 


138  The  CiiLnni  and  Socialism 

supreme  end  of  producing  cheap  goods.  The  human 
beings  who  j)roduced  the  goods  were  almost  entirely 
ignored  by  that  portion  of  the  community  that  is 
somewhat  vaguely  described  as  "the  general  public." 
"Cotton  is  already  twopence  a  yard  or  lower,  and  yet 
bare  backs  were  never  more  numerous  among  us.  Let 
men  cease  to  spend  their  existence  incessantly  contriving 
how  cotton  can  be  made  cheaper,  and  try  to  invent,  a 
little,  how  cotton  at  its  present  cheapness  couUl  be 
somewhat  justlicr  divided  among  us."  Thus  Carlyle, 
in  that  passage  in  "Past  and  Present"  which  contains 
his  merciless  castigalion  of  the  (i()s|)el  of  Manunonism 
and  Competition,  as  it  was  preached  and  practiced  in 
the  England  of  his  day.  Indeed,  the  gospel  of  cheap 
goods  is  still  somewhat  widely  practiced,  for  exami)le, 
in  the  sweat  sho{)s  of  our  great  cities  and  in  the  cotton 
mills  of  the  Southern  Slates.  At  any  rate,  the  con- 
sumer stands  in  no  immediate  or  grave  danger.  Long 
before  his  exploitation  by  the  labor  unions — either 
singl}'  or  in  combination  with  employers — becomes 
general,  the  state  will  undoubtedly  resume  a  function 
that  it  should  never  have  abdicated,  namely,  that  of 
limiting  the  power  of  either  labor  or  cai)ital  to  exact 
extortionate  prices.  In  this  respect  they  managed 
things  better  in  the  Middle  Ages.  To  quote  Ashley: 
"Then,  again,  it  is  the  merit  of  the  guild  system  that  it 
did  for  a  time,  and  in  a  large  measure,  succeed  in  recon- 
ciling the  interests  of  consumers  and  {)roducers.  The 
tendency  of  modern  competition  is  to  sacrifice  the 
producers;  to  assume  that  so  long  as  articles  are  pro- 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       139 

diiccd  cheaply,  it  hardly  matters  what  the  remunera- 
tion of  the  workmen  may  be;  but  the  guild  legislation 
kept  steadily  before  itself  the  ideal  of  combining  good 
quality  and  a  price  that  was  fair  to  the  consumer,  with 
a  fitting  remuneration  to  tlie  workman"  ("English 
Economic  History,"  vol.  ii,  pp.  108,  1G9). 

The  unfavorable  criticisms  of  the  labor  union  which 
have  been  so  frequent  of  late  come  mostly  from  em- 
ployers who  hold  a  partisan  theory  of  the  wage  con- 
tract, or  from  public  speakers  and  writers  who  cling  to  a 
false  theory  of  individual  freedom.     Representatives 
of  the  former  class  seem   to   let    pass  no  opportunity 
for    denouncing    the     infringement     of    their     rights 
committed  by  the  unions    that  insist  on  the    "closed 
shop,"     the     limitation    of    apprentices    and    similar 
practices;    and    they    seem    to  believe  in  their  asser- 
tions.    A  good  example  of  this  habit  of  mind  is  seen  in  a 
speech    made    by    the    toastmaster  of  a  banquet  held 
hy    the    Building    Contractors'    As.sociation    in     Chi- 
cago: "It  is  ridiculous  to  think  that  you  should   be 
obliged  to  waste  your  time  discussing  your  rights  with 
walking  delegates,  business  agents  and  labor  leaders. 
You  have  vour  rights,  and  no  man  should   be  able  to 
step  in  and  dictate  to  you  and  tell  you  where  your 
rights  begin  and  end."     Employers  of  this  type  are  very 
fond  of  the  word  "dictate"  in  condemning  the  attempt 
of  the  unionist  to  lay  down  conditions  without  which  he 
will  not  enter  the  wage  contract;  whereas  the  simple 
truth— self-evident    to    all    except   the    prejudiced— is 
that  in  a  two-sided  contract,  such  as    that   between 


140  The  Ciiiik  h  and  Socialism 

employer  and  rmployc,  even'  condition,  concomitant 
and  consequence  lliat  afTects  l)(>th  parties  should  in  all 
reason  and  justice  )^  determined  by  both  [)arties.  The 
non-unionist  who  says  to  his  employer:  '*  I  nless  you 
p'i\'c  me  a  rise  in  wages  I  will  not  work  for  you  any 
longer,"  is  just  as  truly  and  as  effectively  "dictating" 
as  the  unionist  wl>o  says:  "I  will  not  contimie  in  your 
employ  if  you  hire  men  that  do  not  belong  to  the 
union."  The  same  remark  applies  to  about  every  other 
condition  that  the  union  regularly  insists  upon;  and 
the  employer  has  no  more  right  or  reason  to  assume 
that  his  employes  sl-.ould  have  no  voice  in  the  deter- 
mination of  these  conditions  than  that  they  should  have 
no  voice  in  fixing  the  rate  of  wages.  lie  would  be 
incensed — and  rightly — if  they  should  refuse  to  hear 
any  ol)jecti()n  that  he  might  have  to  the  "closed  shop," 
and  should  take  the  position  that  any  attempt  to  in- 
duce them  to  concede  this  point,  or  even  to  discuss 
the  question,  constituted  an  attack  on  their  "sacred 
right  to  work  under  whatever  conditions  they  pleased." 
Yet  this  contention  of  the  laborers  would  be  no  more 
tyrannical,  unjust  or  unreasonable  than  the  employer's 
assumption  that  any  attempt  to  secure  or  to  discu.ss 
the  "closed  shop"  is  an  invasion  of  his  right  to  "man- 
age his  business  as  he  pleases." 

One  potent  cause  of  this  unreasonable  position  is  the 
fact  that  niany  of  tlie  conditions  of  employment  which 
the  unionist  now  insists  on  helping  to  determine  have 
until  recently  been  under  the  exclusive  control  of  the 
employers.     \  ery  naturally  many  of  the  latter  do  not 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Umox       141 

take  kindly  to  the  relinquisliment  of  powers  which  they 
had  come  to  repard  as  rights.  In  the  beginning  they 
opposed  the  union  as  such  because  its  officials  "inter- 
fered" between  them  and  their  own  emjjloyes;  now 
they  object  to  the  unions  "going  beyond  their  proper 
sphere."  Mr.  John  Graham  Brooks  says  that  em- 
I)loyers  spoke  very  friendly  words  before  the  Industrial 
Commission  concerning  tlie  right  of  labor  to  organize 
and  the  usefulness  of  the  unions,  "when  they  kept  to 
their  i)roj)cr  business,  ,  .  ,  l)ut  the  labor  organiza- 
tion ^\  liich  most  emj)loyers  approve  is  a  docile,  mutual 
benefit  association.  It  is  a  trade  union  that  makes  no 
trouble  for  them.  The  actual  trade  union  which  exists 
to  maintain  what  it  believes  to  be  its  group  rights,  to 
make  its  bargains  collectively  and  to  struggle  for  every 
advantage  it  can  get,  few  cm|)loyers  would  tolerate  an 
instant  if  they  could  avoid  it"  ("The  Social  Unrest," 
p.  37).  The  exj)laMation  of  this  attitude  is,  of  course, 
to  be  found  j)artly  in  the  desire  for  gain,  but  it  is  to  a 
large  extent  due  to  the  desire  for  power,  "the  passion 
for  masterhood,"  which  in  days  gone  by  kept  the  .serf 
in  subjection  to  the  lord  and  the  slave  in  subjection  to 
the  master,  and  Avhich  still  shuts  out  the  negro  from 
all  but  menial  occupations.  Consciously  or  uncon- 
sciously, too,  many  cniijloycrs  continue  to  regard  the 
laborer  as  the  lord  looked  upon  the  serf — a  being  of  a 
lower  order  who  was  not  qualified  and  should  not  pre- 
sume to  have  a  great  deal  to  say  in  shai)ing  the  relations 
between  himself  and  his  master.  The  instinct  of  suj)e- 
riority  which  in  one  or  other  of  its  myriad  forms  is  as 


142  The  Church  and  Sociausm 

old  as  tlie  race  and  as  long  lived  is  hurt  when  the 
sui)erior  is  placed  on  an  equal  fooling  of  contractual 
I)OWer  with  those  who  ha\c  long  hccii  rc;_'ai(lc(l  as 
inferiors. 

Disinterested  i)ul)lic  s|K>akcrs  and  writers  who  find 
fault  with  the  principle  of  unionism  or  with  its  legiti- 
mate methods  are  largely  influenced  by  a  false  concep- 
tion of  the  lil)erly  and  rights  of  the  individual.  This 
conception,  this  theory,  was  sujjreme  in  France  and 
throughout  the  English-speaking  world  at  the  beginning 
of  the  modern  industrial  regime  one  hundred  years  ago, 
and  is  still  sufliciently  strong  to  work  immense  harm  in 
every  relation  of  .social  life.  "The  principle  which  was 
in  the  mind  of  every  eager  politician  Adam  Smith 
and  the  Physiocrats  ai)plied  to  industry  and  trade. 
.  .  .  .Vdam  .*^mith  believe*]  iti  the  natural  economic 
equality  of  men.  That  l)eing  .so,  it  only  needed  legal 
etpiality  of  rights  and  all  would  be  well.  Liberty  was 
to  him  the  gospel  of  salvation;  he  could  not  imagine 
that  it  miulit  l)ecome  the  means  of  destruction — that 
legal  iil)crty  where  there  was  no  real  economic  inde- 
pendence migiit  turn  to  the  disadvantage  of  the  work- 
men" (Toynljee,  "The  Industrial  Revolution,"  pp. 
l.S,  17).  Preci.sely  this  hai>pened.  The  doctrine  of 
unlimited  competition,  of  no  interference  with  the 
industrial  activity  of  the  individual,  either  by  tl;e  state 
or  by  private  associations  of  men,  which  was  adopted 
as  the  supreme  princii)le  of  the  economic  order  that  was 
ushered  in  by  the  great  mechanical  inventions  at  the 
end  of  tl.e  eighteenth  centurj',  soon  led  to  the  awful 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       143 

wage-slavery  that  for  almost  fifty  years  disgraced 
EngUnd.  Not  only  women,  but  children  from  six 
years  up  were  kept  at  work  for  sixteen  hours  out  of  the 
twenty-four,  and  the  factories  were  operated  by  night 
as  well  as  l)y  day.  "In  stench,  in  heated  rooms,  amid 
the  constant  whirling  of  a  thousand  wheels,  little 
fingers  and  little  feet  were  kept  in  constant  action, 
forced  into  unnatural  activity  by  blows  from  the  heavy 
hands  and  feet  of  the  merciless  overlooker  and  the 
infliction  of  bodily  pain  by  instruments  of  punishment 
invented  by  the  sharj)ened  ingenuity  of  insatiable 
selfishness"  (Alfred,  "History  of  the  Factory  System,'* 
vol.  i.  j)p.  21,  22).  This  was  only  the  logical  result  of 
the  doctrine  of  unlimited  individual  freedom,  the  free- 
dom of  the  citizen  to  sell  his  labor,  atul  that  of  his  wife 
and  ciiildrcn,  in  whatever  conditions  and  on  whatever 
terms  he  saw  lit.  without  let  or  hin<Iran<c  from  "pater- 
luilistic"  legislation  or  from  the  "interference"  of 
labor  organizations.  Trade  unions  were  under  the  ban 
of  the  law,  for  they  restrained  freedom  of  contract. 
When  philanthropic  men  tried  to  secure  the  passage  of 
factory  laws  limiting  the  working  hours  of  women  and 
children  and  fixing  an  age  below  which  the  latter  could 
not  be  employed,  they  had  to  meet  the  same  arguments 
for  individual  rights  and  lil^rty  that  are  used  today 
against  the  efforts  of  unionists  to  restrict  the  self- 
destructive  and  class-destructive  activity  of  the  selfish, 
the  weak  and  the  ignorant  individual  laborer.  Not  all 
the  crimes  that  have  been  committed  in  the  name  of 
liberty  are  political. 


144  The  Church  and  Socialism 

What,  after  all,  is  liberty?     Negatively,  it  is  absence 
of   restraint;   positively,   and   more   adequately,   it   is 
presence  of  oi)i)ortunity.     \Ve  sjieak  here  only  of  the 
liberty  that  is  called  physical.   Now,  j)hysical  restraints 
are  not  all  imposed  by  the  stron<:  arm  of  the  civil  law 
or  by  the  muscular  force  of  one's  fellows.     There  is, 
besides,  the  restraint  exercised  by  hunger,  and  cold,  and 
the  various  other  forms  of  Iiclj)lcssness  due  to  the  forces 
known   as   economic.     Political    arui   legal    liberty   are 
not  the  whole  of  social  liberty,  for  a  num  may  be  free 
from  subjection   to  a  political  dcsi)ot  and  be  legally 
empowered  to  enter  every  contract  that  is  within  the 
limits  of  reason,  and  yet  be  liindereii  by  economic  con- 
ditions— restraints — from  making  a  contract  that  will 
safeguard  his  welfare  and  his  rights.     Since  the  only 
rational  end  of  liberty  is  the  good  of  the  iiuiividual, 
such  a  i)erson  is  not  completely  free;  he  is  without  that 
opportunity  wliich  is  the  positive  and  vital  side  of  all 
true  freedom.     The  man,  for  exami)le,  who  must  work 
today  or  go  to  bed — if  he  can  find  a  bed — hungry  is  not 
free  in  the  .same  .sense  as  the  employer  who,  if  he  fail 
to  come  to  terms  with  this  particular  laborer,  can  afford 
to  wait  until  next  week.     There  can  be  no  genuine 
freedom    of   contract    between    men    whose   economic 
position  is  so  unequal  that  the  alternative  is  for  one 
grave  physical  suffering,  and  for  tlie  other  a  monetary 
loss  or  an  unsecured  gain.     AVhenever  this  condition 
is  realized,  the  liberty  of  contract  possessed  by  the 
isolated  laborer  becomes  the  liberty  to  injure  himself 
and  his  fellows  by  heli:)ing  to  establish  an  iniquitous 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       145 

rate  of  wages.  Such  an  extreme  of  liberty  is,  despite 
the  eloquent  sophistry  of  the  defenders  of  individualism* 
not  worth  preserving.  It  is  a  curse  both  to  the  in- 
dividr.al  who  makes  use  of  it  and  to  society.  Neither 
the  liberty  nor  the  right  to  do  unreasonable  things  is  a 
desirable  possession.  And  when  the  labor  union,  by 
means  of  the  collective  bargain,  the  "closed  shop"  or 
any  other  legitimate  method,  makes  this  suicidal  and 
anti-social  exercise  of  freedom  impossible,  it  deserves 
the  approval  of  every  intelligent  lover  of  liberty,  since 
it  makes  possible  the  only  real  freedom,  which  is 
opportunity.  ' 

Catholics  esj)ccially  should  not  allow  themselves  to 
be  misled  into  oj)position  to  tlie  labor  union  by  this 
specious  pica  of  freedom  for  the  individual  "to  work 
when,  where  and  under  what  conditions  he  likes." 
This  unreasonable  extreme  of  liberty  is  no  part  of 
either  Catholic  theory  or  practice.  According  to 
Catholic  doctrine,  liberty  is  merely  a  means  to  right 
and  reasonable  sclf-develoi)ment,  and  the  liberty  tliat 
does  not  tend  toward  this  goal  is  baneful  and  false. 
In  the  Middle  Ages — especially  toward  the  close  of 
tliat  i^eriod — when  Catholic  principles  dominated  the 
political  and  industrial  institutions  of  the  greater  part 
of  Europe,  the  two  opposite  evils  of  tyrannical  ab- 
solutism and  anarchical  individualism  were  equallj' 
unknown.  "The  doctrine  of  the  unconditioned  duty 
of  obedience  was  wholly  foreign  to  the  Middle  Age," 
says  Gierke  in  his  "Political  Theories  of  the  Middle 
Age;"   and   Mr.    W.   S.   Lilly  justly   observes:   "The 


IIG  The  CinRrn  Axn  Socialism 

monarch  vas  everywhere  houn<l  hy  j>act.s,  solemnly 
recognized  and  sworn  to,  as  a  condition  of  his  xmction 
and  coronation,  and  was  hemmed  in  on  all  sides  by 
free  institutions,  hy  the  Universal  Church,  'tlie  Chris- 
tian Rcimhlic'  as  it  was  called,  hy  universities,  coq)ora- 
tions,  hrothcrhoods,  monastic  ortlcrs;  hy  franchises  and 
privileges  of  all  kinds,  which  in  a  greater  or  less  degree 
existed  all  over  Europe"  ("A  Century  of  Revolution," 
p.  8).  On  the  other  hand,  the  fiction  of  the  physical 
and  mental  and  economic  equality  of  all  the  memlters 
of  the  commonwealth  and  their  complete  individual 
independence  was  nowhere  assumed  or  aimed  at. 
The  very  obvious  fact  that  all  the  citizens  have  not  the 
same  interests,  but  are  divided  into  classes,  chiefly  on 
economic  lines,  was  frankly  recognize<l;  hence  the 
individual  was  primarily  regarded,  not  as  one  of  a 
multitude  of  ccpially  powerful  atoms,  but  as  a  member 
of  a  certain  class.  Accordingly  the  difl"erent  clas.ses 
received  from  the  civil  authority  recognition  and 
privileges — as  in  the  case  already  cited  of  the  craft 
guiUls — which  were  more  or  less  adapted  to  safeg\iard 
their  peculiar  welfare.  The  result  was  a  truer  and 
fuller,  because  more  positive,  liberty  for  the  individual. 
Here  in  America  legislation  does  not  formally  recog- 
nize the  existence  of  classes  or  class  interests.  It 
ignores  the  fact  that  for  the  great  majority  of  individuals 
their  class  interests  arc  their  primary  interests;  that 
where  they  have  one  interest  in  conmion  with  all  the 
other  citizens  of  the  countrj^  they  have  ten  that  are 
vital  only  to  their  particular  class.     The  constitution 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uxion       147 

seems  to  assume  that  laws  can  be  framed  which  will  be 
equally  favorable  to  all  individuals,  while,  as  a  matter 
of  fact,  the  balance  of  effect  of  almost  every  lej^'al 
enactment  of  an  economic  nature  is  to  benefit  one  class 
at  the  expense  of  another.  As  a  consequenc-e  of  this 
solicitude  for  an  abstract  individual  citizen  that  never 
existed  and  never  will  exist,  so  long  as  men  are  born 
with  unequal  powers  and  perform  different  social 
functions,  just  and  beneficial  legislation  is  constantly 
j)revented,  or  when  enacted  is  declared  unconstitutional. 
For  example,  the  law  jiroviding  for  a  progressive  income 
tax  was  aiuiullc<l  by  the  Supreme  Court  as  class  legisla- 
tion l>ecause  it  imposed  a  heavier  burden  on  the  larger 
incomes.  Vet  this  was  one  of  the  law's  vital  purposes. 
The  attempt  to  regard  as  equal  men  who  are  not  equal 
hinders  proportional  justice;  for,  as  Mcnger  has  finely 
said,  "Xotliing  can  l)e  more  unequal  than  to  treat 
unequals  equally."  To  remedy  this  condition  there 
is  no  need  to  return  to  the  industrial  organization  of 
tiie  Middle  .Vges,  to  the  guild  system,  for  it  could  not 
be  adai)ted  to  the  regime  of  machinery  and  large 
businesses.  This  is  not  the  only  objection  to  a  return 
of  the  old  order,  but  it  is  sufliciently  powerful  to  con- 
vince any  well-informed  man  that  the  i)lan — and  we 
sometimes  hear  it  proposed  seriously — is  utterly  im- 
practicable. What  is  wanted  is  recognition  of  the 
political  and  social  principle  that  underlay  the  guild 
organization  of  industry,  the  i)rinciple  that  so  long  as  dif- 
ferent economic  classes  exist  each  must  receive  the  meas- 
ure of  protection,  encouragement  and  privilege  that  is  re- 


148  Tun  Cin  Hcii  and  Socialism 

quired  to  secure  its  rights  and  welfare.  To  this  end  it 
is  necessary  that  tl:e  nicnihcr.s  of  cacli  chiss  he  organized; 
that  the  orpanizations  be  not  merely  tolerated  and 
controlled,  but  assisted  by  law  as  well  as  by  public 
opinion;  tliat  the  labor  union  and  every  other  lawful 
association  be  afforded  adequate  means  to  defend  itself 
against  both  the  unjust  aggression  of  other  classes  and 
the  <lcstructive  competition  of  the  helpless,  the  ignorant 
and  t!ie  selfish  individuals  of  its  own. 

Criticism — constant  and  vigilant  criticism — of  the 
excesses  of  the  labor  union  is,  of  course,  demanded  in 
the  interests  of  justice  and  social  order;  but  if  it  is  to 
be  efTectivc  it  nuist  not  only  be  free  from  the  prejudice 
begotten  of  self-interest  or  erroneous  theories,  as  just 
described,  but  itnuist  be,  moreover,  based  on  adequate 
knowledge.  This  imi)lics  that  some  attention  be 
given  to  the  presentation  of  the  case  of  the  union  by 
its  own  members.  What  is  true  of  every  social  class 
must  be  fully  and  frankly  recognized  as  true  of  work- 
ingmen,  namely,  that  certain  features  and  needs  of 
the  group  can  be  understood  by  no  one,  no  matter  how 
good  his  intentions,  so  well  as  by  the  men  who  compose 
it.  The  failure  of  the  older  school  of  English  economists 
to  take  into  account  this  very  obvious  fact  brought 
upon  their  science  the  hatred  and  contemi)t  of  the 
laborer.  From  their  high  and  serene  a  priori  ground 
the  economists  had  proved  to  the  benighted  English 
workingmen  that  tlie  whole  principle  of  unionism,  and 
especially  the  contention  that  wages  could  be  raised 
by  combination  or  by  any  other  form  of  "artificial 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Uxiox       149 

effort"  that  ran  counter  of  the  "wage  fund  th.eory," 
was  ruinous  and  false.  But  the  workinpmen  would 
not  listen,  and  they  had  the  satisfaction  of  seeing  their 
position  justified  both  by  the  logic  of  events  and  by 
the  revised  verdict  of  the  economists.  "Thus  economic 
authority  today,  looking  back  on  the  confident  asser- 
tions against  Trade  Unionism  made  by  McCulloch 
and  Mill,  Nassau  Senior  and  Harriet  Martincau, 
Fawcctt  and  Cairncs,  has  luunbly  to  admit,  in  the 
words  of  the  present  occupant  of  the  chair  once  filled 
by  Nassau  Senior  himself  (Professor  Edgcworth,  of 
O.xford)  that  'in  the  matter  of  unionism,  as  well  as  in 
that  of  the  predeterminate  wage  fund,  the  untutored 
mind  of  the  workman  had  gone  more  straight  to  the 
point  than  economic  intelligence  misled  by  a  bad 
method'"  ("Industrial  Democracy,"  p.  653).  Herein 
is  contained  a  lesson  for  those  well-meaning  writers 
and  speakers  of  today  who  feel  con.petent  to  pro- 
nounce a  final  appreciation  and  criticism  of  unionism 
without  having  read  the  principles  of  a  single  trade 
union  or  made  a  serious  attempt  to  understand  the 
unionist's  j)oint  of  view.  If  criticism  is  to  be  intelligent 
and  effective,  it  nuist  proceed  from  a  study  of  facts  and 
conditions  at  first  hand — or  as  nearly  so  as  possible — 
and  from  a  due  consideration  of  the  aims,  and  knowl- 
edge, and  beliefs  of  all  the  classes  concerned. 

The  conclusion  that  seems  justified  by  this  lengthy 
and  yet  summarj-  study  of  th.e  labor  union  is  that  the 
aims  of  the  union  are  substantially  right,  and  that  of 
its  methods,  only  violence,  tjTanny  and  the  tendency 


150  The  CnuRcn  axd  Socialism 

to  make  excessive  demands  are  in  all  circnmstances 
unjustifiable.  When  confined  within  reasonable  limits 
all  the  other  methods  are  lawful,  both  legally  and 
morally.  It  is  freely  admitted  that  the  unions  have 
sometimes — j)erhai)S  correct  language  would  authorize 
the  term  "frequently" — been  too  hasty  in  making  use  of 
their  extreme,  though  legitimate,  metho<ls,  and  too 
willing  to  push  them  to  their  furthest  limits.  And 
it  is  always  assumed  that  no  one  of  the  methods  is 
justifiable  unless  the  concrete  tlemand  on  behalf  of 
which  it  is  employed  is  reasonable.  It  must,  however, 
be  noted  here  that  the  verification  of  this  condition  is 
not  always  as  easy  as  the  imionists  seem  to  imagine. 
Certainly  the  determination  of  the  equities  of  any 
dispute  between  employer  and  employes  can  no  more 
be  entrusted  exclusively  to  the  latter  than  to  the 
former.  The  maxim  that  no  one  is  a  comi)ctent  judge 
of  his  own  cause  does  not  admit  the  laborer  as  its 
unique  exception.  The  tributes  sometimes  paid  to 
the  working  class  by  union  speakers  and  writers  imply 
that  the  members  of  this  class  are  the  peo})le,  and  that 
wisdom  and  fairness  will  die  with  them.  As  a  matter 
of  fact,  some  of  the  worst  of  the  "labor-crushers," 
whether  among  overseers  or  employers,  are  men  who 
were  formerly  wage-earners;  and  some  of  the  most 
exclusive  and  selfish  social  groups  in  existence  are  the 
unions  that  control  certain  trades — "the  aristocracy 
of  unionism."  An  abundance  of  facts  of  this  kind — 
to  say  nothing  of  the  unchangeable  limitations  of 
human    nature — forbids    the   calm    observer   to   take 


Moral  Aspects  of  the  Labor  Union       151 

seriously  the  promises  of  socialism  concerning  the  reign 
of  justice  and  equality  that  \\'\\\  arrive  when  the 
j)roletariat  gets  control  of  the  political  and  industrial 
power  of  the  nation.  Laborers  are  no  more  immune 
from  error  or  the  liability  to  abuse  power  than  any  other 
class  of  human  beings.  Ilappily,  one  is  not  constrained 
by  any  rule  of  logic  or  common-sense  to  make  an  act 
(jf  faith  in  the  moral  perfection  of  the  laborer  as  a  pre- 
liminary to  belief  in  the  principle  of  unionism.  For 
the  man  who  is  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  toiler 
and  who  wishes  to  see  our  present  social  order  pre- 
served, it  is  sufficient  to  realize  that  the  aims  and 
methods  of  the  union  are  substantially  just;  that,  as 
long  as  religion  has  such  small  influence  on  industrial 
relations,  the  union  is  the  only  social  force  that  can 
afford  adequate  i)rotection  to  the  great  mass  of  laborers; 
and,  finally,  that  the  existing  unions  constitute  the"only 
power  that  can  prevent  a  wholesale  going  over  of  the 
workers  to  socialism. 


VI 
THE  CIIURCII   AND   THE  WORKINC.MAN 

"Even  though  it  be  only  n  dream,  I  like  to  indulge  the  thought 
that  some  day  the  Church  of  the  poor  will  lead  them  out  of  bond- 
age,  and   prove   to   the   unbelieving   world   its  divine  mission." 

The  vie^^'point  indicated  in  this  sentence  is  sufTiciently 
frequent  among  Catholics  to  justify  a  brief  reconsider- 
ation of  a  somewhat  liackneyed  tojiic.  Among  the 
Protestant  churches  that  display  any  considerable 
amount  of  vitality,  the  tendency  is  rapidly  prowinp 
toward  a  conception  that  identifies  religion  with 
humanitarianism,  while  the  majority  of  non-church- 
goers who  admit  that  religion  has  any  useful  function 
probably  share  the  same  concejjtion.  In  such  an 
environment  it  is  not  a  matter  of  surprise  that  many 
Catholics  should  exaggerate  the  social  mission  of  the 
Church. 

The  Church  is  not  merely  nor  nuiinly  a  social  reform 
organization,  nor  is  it  her  primary  mission  to  reorganize 
society,  or  to  realize  the  Kingdom  of  God  ui)on  earth. 
Her  primary  sphere  is  the  individual  soul,  her  primary 
object  to  save  souls,  that  is,  to  fit  them  for  the  Kingdom 
of  God  in  heaven.  Man's  true  life,  the  life  of  the  soul, 
consists  in  supernatural  union  with  God,  which  has  its 
beginning  during  the  brief  period  of  his  earthly  life, 
but  which  is  to  be  completed  in  the  eternal  existence 
to  come  afterward.  Compared  with  this  inmiortal  life, 
such  temporary  goods  as  wealth,  liberty,  education,  or 
fame,  are  utterly  insignificant.     To  make  these  or  any 

152 


The  Church  and  the  Workingman        153 

other  earthly  considerations  the  supreme  aim  would  be 
as  foolish  as  to  continue  the  activities  and  amuse- 
ments of  childhood  after  one  had  reached  maturity.  It 
would  be  to  cling  to  the  accidental  and  disregard  the 
essential.  Scoffers  and  sceptics  may  contemn  this  view 
as  "other-worldly,"  but  they  cannot  deny  that  it  is  the 
only  logical  and  .sane  position  for  men  who  accept  the 
Christian  teaching  on  life,  death,  and  immortality. 
Were  the  Church  to  treat  the  present  life  as  anything 
more  than  a  means  to  the  end,  which  is  immortal  life,  it 
would  be  false  to  its  mission.  It  might  deserve  great 
praise  as  a  philanthropic  association,  but  it  would  have 
forfeited  all  right  to  the  name  of  Christian  Church. 

Having  thus  reasserted  the  obvious  truth  that  the 
Church's  function  is  the  regeneration  and  improvement 
of  the  individual  soul  with  a  view  to  the  life  beyond, 
let  us  inquire  how  far  this  includes  social  teaching  or 
social  activity.  Since  the  soul  cannot  live  righteously 
e.xcept  through  right  conduct,  the  Church  must  teach 
and  enforce  the  principles  of  right  conduct.  Now  a 
very  large  and  very  important  i)art  of  conduct  falls 
under  the  heads  of  charity  and  justice.  Hence  we  find 
that  from  the  beginning  the  Church  propagated  these 
virtues  both  by  word  and  by  action.  As  regards  char- 
ity, she  taught  the  brotherhood  of  man  and  strove  to 
make  it  real  through  organizations  and  institutions.  In 
the  early  centuries  of  the  Christian  era,  the  bishops  and 
priests  maintained  a  parochial  system  of  poor  relief,  to 
which  they  gave  as  much  active  direction  and  care  as 
to   any   of   their  purely   religious   functions.     In   the 


154  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Middle  Ages  the  Church  promoted  and  supported 
the  nioiiastic  system  with  its  iimumcrahle  institutions 
for  tlic  relief  of  all  forms  of  distress.  I'ndcr  her  direction 
and  active  support  today,  religious  communities  main- 
tain liosi)ita!s  for  the  sick  and  homes  for  all  kinds  of 
dc|)endents.  To  take  hut  one  instance,  the  Church  in 
America  collects  money  for  ori)han  asylums  as  regularly 
as  for  many  of  her  purely  rcli^'ious  ohjects.  As  regards 
justice,  the  Church  has  ah\ays  taught  the  doctrine  of 
individual  dignity,  rights,  and  sacredness,  and  pro- 
claimed that  all  men  are  essentially  equal.  Through 
this  teaching  the  lot  of  the  slave  was  humanized,  and 
the  institution  itself  gradually  di.sapi>earcd;  serfdom 
was  made  l)earal)le,  and  l)ecame  in  time  transformed 
into  a  status  in  which  the  tiller  of  the  soil  enjoyed 
security  of  tenure,  protection  against  the  exactions  of 
the  lord,  and  a  recognized  place  in  the  social  organism. 
Owing  to  her  doctrine  that  lahor  was  honorahle  and  was 
the  universal  condition  and  law  of  life,  the  working 
classes  gradually  acquired  that  measure  of  self-resi>ect 
and  of  power  which  enabled  them  to  .set  up  and  main- 
tain for  centuries  the  industrial  democracy  that  pre- 
vailed in  the  medieval  towns.  Her  uniform  teaching 
that  the  earth  was  given  hy  Cod  to  all  the  children  of 
men,  and  that  the  individual  proprietor  was  only  a 
steward  of  his  possessions,  was  preached  and  empha- 
sized by  the  Fathers  in  language  that  has  brought 
upon  them  the  charge  of  communism.  The  theological 
principle  that  the  starving  man  who  has  no  other  re- 
source may  seize  what  is  necessary  from  the  goods  of  his 


The  Church  axd  thk  Workingmax         155 

neighbor  is  merely  one  particular  conclusion  from  this 
general  doctrine.  She  also  taught  that  every  commod- 
ity, including  labor,  had  a  certain  just  or  fair  price  from 
which  men  ought  not  to  depart,  and  that  the  laborer, 
like  the  member  of  ever>'  otl;er  social  class,  had  a 
right  to  a  decent  living  in  accordance  ^vith  the  stand- 
ards of  the  group  to  which  lie  l)elonged.  During  the 
centuries  preceding  the  rise  of  mo<lern  cai)italism,  when 
the  iiu)tiey-leiidor  was  the  greatest  oppressor  of  the  j)oor, 
she  forbade  the  taking  of  interest.  Among  her  irorhs 
in  the  interest  of  social  justice  and  social  welfare,  two 
only  will  Im?  mentioned  here:  the  achievements  of  her 
monks  in  promoting  agriculture  and  settled  life  in  the 
midst  of  the  anarchic  conditions  that  followed  the 
downfall  of  the  Roman  Empire,  and  her  encourage- 
ment of  the  guilds,  those  splendid  organizations  which 
secured  for  their  members  a  greater  measure  of  welfare 
relatively  to  the  possibilities  of  the  time  than  any  other 
industrial  system  that  has  ever  existed. 

To  the  general  proposition  that  the  Church  is 
obliged  to  inculcate  the  principles  of  charity  and  justice 
both  by  i>recept  and  by  action,  all  intelligent  persons, 
whether  Catholic  or  not,  will  subscril>e.  Oi)inions  will 
differ  only  as  to  the  extent  to  which  she  ought  to  go  in 
this  direction.  I>et  us  consider  first  the  j)roblem  of  her 
function  as  teacher. 

The  Church  cannot  be  expected  to  adopt  formally' 
any  particular  programme,  either  jiartial  or  comprehen- 
sive, of  social  reconstruction  or  social  reform.  This  is 
as  far  out  of  her  proWnce  as  is  the  advocacy  of  definite 


156  The  Church  and  Socialism 

methods  of  political  organization,  agriculture,  manufac- 
tures, or  finance.  Direct  particii>ation  in  matters  of 
this  nature  uould  absorb  energies  that  ought  to  be 
devoted  to  her  religious  and  moral  work  and  would 
greatly  lessen  her  influence  over  the  minds  and  hearts 
of  men.  Iler  attitude  toward  specific  measures  of 
social  reform  can  only  be  that  of  judge  and  guide. 
When  necessity  warrants  it,  she  i)r()nounccs  upon  their 
moral  character,  condenming  them  if  they  are  bad, 
encouraging  them  if  they  are  good.  They  come  within 
her  province  only  in  so  far  as  they  involve  the  princij)les 
of  morality. 

With  regard  to  the  n'oral  asjicct  of  existing  social 
and  industrial  conditions,  the  Church  does  lay  down 
sufhciently  definite  principles.  They  are  almost  all 
contained  in  the  Encyclical,  "On  the  Condition  of 
Labor,"  issued  by  Pope  Leo  XI H.  Passing  over  his 
declarations  on  society,  the  family,  socialism,  the 
state,  v.onum  labor,  child  labor,  organization,  and 
arbitration,  let  us  emphasize  his  pronouncement  that 
the  lal^orer  has  a  moral  claim  to  a  wage  that  will  sui)j)ort 
himself  and  his  family  in  reasonable  and  frugal  comfort. 
Beside  this  principle  let  us  put  the  traditional  Catholic 
teaching  concerning  monopolies,  th.e  just  price  of 
goods,  and  fair  profits.  If  these  doctrines  were  en- 
forced throughout  the  industrial  world,  the  social 
problem  would  soon  be  within  measurable  distance  of  a 
satisfactory  solution.  If  all  workingn;en  received  liv- 
ing wages  in  humane  conditions  of  employment,  and  if 
all   capital   obtained   only   moderate   and   reasonable 


The  Church  and  the  Workixgmax         157 

profits,  the  serious  elements  of  the  problem  remaining 
"uould  soon  solve  themselves. 

But  the  social  principles  here  referred  to  are  all  very 
general  in  character.  They  are  of  very  little  practical 
use  unless  they  are  made  sj)ecific  and  applied  in  detail 
to  concrete  industrial  relations.  Docs  the  Church 
satisfactorily  perform  this  task.^  Well,  it  is  a  task  that 
falls  upon  the  bishops  and  the  priests  rather  than  upon 
the  central  authority  at  Rome.  For  examjjle,  the  teach- 
ing of  Vope  Leo  about  a  living  wage,  child  labor, 
woman  labor,  oppressive  hours  of  work,  etc.,  can  be 
proj)erly  api)lied  to  any  region  only  by  the  local  clergy, 
who  are  acquainted  with  the  precise  circumstances,  and 
whose  duty  it  is  to  convert  general  principles  into  speci- 
fic regulations.  In  this  connection  another  extract 
from  the  j)rivate  letter  cited  above  may  be  found  inter- 
esting and  suggestive:  "If  the  same  fate  is  not  to  over- 
come us  that  has  overtaken — and  justly — the  Church 
in  Eurojic,  the  Catholic  Church  here  will  have  to  see 
that  it  cannot  commend  itself  to  the  masses  of  the 
people  by  begging  Dives  to  be  more  lavish  of  his 
crumbs  to  Lazarus,  or  by  moral  inculcations  to  em- 
ployers to  deal  with  their  employes  in  a  more  Christian 
manner."  There  is  some  exaggeration  in  both  clauses 
of  this  sentence.  The  defection  of  large  numbers  of 
the  people  from  the  Church  in  certain  countries  of 
Europe  cannot  be  ascribed  to  any  single  cause.  Some  of 
its  causes  antedate  the  beginnings  of  the  modern  social 
question;  others  are  not  social  or  ndustrial  at  all;  and 
still  others  would  have  produced  a  large  measure  of 


158  The  Church  and  Sociausm 

damaging  results  despite  the  most  intelligent  and  most 
active  efforts  of  the  clerg>'.  When  due  allowance  has 
hccn  made  for  all  these  factors  it  must  still  be  admitted 
that  the  losses  in  question  would  have  been  very 
much  smaller,  possibly  would  have  been  compara- 
tively easy  to  restore,  had  the  clergy,  bishops  and 
priests  realized  the  significance,  extent,  and  vitality  of 
modern  democracy,  economic  and  political,  and  if  they 
had  done  their  best  to  permeate  it  with  the  Christian 
princi|)les  of  social  justice.  On  the  other  hand,  where, 
as  in  Germany  and  Belgium,  the  clergy  have  made 
serious  efforts  to  apply  these  j)riii(ii>les  both  by  teach- 
ing and  action,  the  movement  of  anticlericalism  has 
made  comparatively  little  headway.  At  any  rate,  the 
better  i)Osition  of  the  Church  and  the  sui)erior  vitality 
of  religion  among  the  peoj)le  in  these  t\\o  countries  can 
be  traced  quite  clearly  to  the  more  enlightened  atti- 
tude of  their  clergy  toward  the  social  j>roblcm. 

The  second  clause  of  the  quotation  given  above 
underestimates,  by  implication  at  least,  tlie  value  of 
charity  as  a  remedy  for  industrial  abuses  It  cannot, 
indeed,  be  too  strongly  nor  too  frequently  insisted  that 
charity  is  not  a  substitute  for  justice;  on  the  other 
hand,  any  solution  of  the  social  problem  based  solely 
upon  conceptions  of  justice,  and  not  wrought  out  and 
continued  in  the  spirit  of  charity,  would  be  cold,  lifeless, 
and  in  all  probability  of  short  duration.  If  men  en- 
deavor to  treat  each  other  merely  as  equals,  ignoring 
their  relation  as  brothers,  they  cannot  long  maintain 
pure  and  adequate  notions  of  justice  nor  apply  the 


The  Church  and  the  Workingman         159 

principles  of  justice  fully  and  fairly  to  all  individuals. 
The  personal  and  the  human  element  will  be  wanting. 
Were  employers  and  employes  delii)erately  and  sin- 
cerely to  attempt  to  base  all  their  economic  relations 
upon  Christian  charity,  upon  the  Golden  Rule,  they 
would  necessarily  and  automatically  place  these  rela- 
tions upon  a  basis  of  justice.  For  true  and  adequate 
charity  includes  justice,  but  justice  does  not  include 
charity.  However,  the  charity  that  the  writer  of  the 
letter  condemns  is  neither  true  nor  adequate;  it  neither 
includes  justice,  nor  is  of  any  value  in  the  present  situa- 
tion. 

Let  it  be  at  once  admitted  that  the  clergy  of  America 
have  done  comparatively  little  to  ai)ply  the  social  teach- 
ings of  the  Church,  or  in  particular  of  the  Encyclical 
"On  the  Condition  of  Labor,"  to  our  industrial  rela- 
tions. The  bishops  who  have  made  any  pronounce- 
ments in  the  matter  could  probably  be  counted  on  tiie 
fingers  of  one  hand,  wliile  the  priests  who  have  done  so 
are  not  more  numerous  proportionally.'  But  there  are 
good  reasons  for  this  condition  of  things.  The  moral 
aspects  of  modern  industry  are  extremely  diflicult  to 
evaluate  correctly,  its  physical  aspects  and  relations  are 
very  complicated  and  not  at  all  easy  of  comi)rehension, 
and   the  social   problem  has  only  in  rec-ent  times   begun 

'  In  January.  1919,  the  four  bishops  who  constituted  the  .Ad- 
ministrative Committee  of  the  National  Catholic  War  Council 
issued  a  Program  of  Social  Reconstruction  which  has  been 
almost  universally  acclaimed  as  the  sanest  pronouncement 
made  on  that  subject. 


160  The  CiirRni  and  SoriALisM 

to  become  acute.  Add  to  these  circumstances  the 
fact  that  the  American  clcrpy  have  for  the  niost  part 
been  very  busy  or/^anizing  ]  arishes,  building  churclies 
and  schools,  and  providing  the  material  equipment  of 
religion  generally,  and  you  have  a  tolerably  sufhcient 
explanation  of  their  failure  to  stiuly  the  social  problem 
and  expound  the  social  teaching  of  the  Church. 

The  same  conditions  account  for  the  comparative 
inactivity  of  the  American  clcrgj'  in  the  matter  of 
social  ivorks.  Up  to  the  present  their  efforts  have  been 
confined  to  the  maintenance  of  homes  for  defectives 
and  dependents  and  the  encouragement  of  charitable 
societies.  In  some  of  the  countries  of  Europe,  par- 
ticularly Ccrmany  and  lielgium,  and  more  recently 
France  and  Italy,  bishops  and  j)riests  have  engaged 
more  or  less  directly  in  a  great  variety  of  projects  for 
the  betterment  of  social  conditions,  such  as  cooj)erative 
societies,  rural  banks,  ^vorkingmen's  gardens,  etc. 
Obviously  activities  of  this  kind  are  not  the  primary 
duty  of  the  clergA',  but  are  undertaken  merely  as  means 
to  the  religious  and  moral  improvement  of  the  people. 
The  extent  to  which  any  j)riest  or  bishop  ought  to 
engage  in  them  is  a  matter  of  local  expediency.  So  far 
as  general  principles  are  concerned,  a  priest  could  with 
as  much  jjropriety  assist  and  direct  building  societies, 
cooperative  associations  of  all  sorts,  settlement  houses, 
consumers'  leagues,  child  labor  associations,  and  a  great 
variety  of  other  social  reform  activities,  as  he  now 
assists  and  directs  orphan  asylums,  parochial  schools, 
St.  Vincent  de  Paul  societies,  or  temperance  societies 


The  Church  and  the  Workixgman         161 

None  of  these  is  a  purely  religious  institution;  all  of 
them  may  be  made  effective  aids  to  Christian  life  and 
Christian  faith. 

The  necessity  for  both  social  teaching  and  social 
works  by  our  American  clergy  is  very  great  and  very 
urgent.  To  this  extent  tiie  sentence  quoted  in  the 
body  of  this  paper  is  not  an  exaggeration.  There  is  a 
very  real  danger  that  large  masses  of  our  workingmen 
will,  l)efore  many  years  have  gone  by,  have  accepted 
unchristian  views  concerning  social  and  industrial  in- 
stitutions, and  will  have  come  to  look  ui)on  the  Church 
as  indifferent  to  human  rights  and  careful  only  about 
the  rights  of  property.  Let  anyone  who  doubts  this 
statement  take  the  trouble  to  get  the  confidence  and 
the  opinions  of  a  considerable  number  of  intelligent 
Catholic  trade  unionists  and  to  become  regular  readers 
of  one  or  two  representative  labor  journals.  We  are 
now  discussing  things  as  they  are,  not  things  as  we 
should  like  to  see  them,  nor  yet  things  as  they  were 
fifteen  or  twenty-five  years  ago.  Persons  who  are 
unable  to  see  the  possibility  of  an  estrangement,  such 
as  has  occurred  in  Europe,  between  the  i)eople  and  the 
clergy  in  America,  forget  that  modern  democracy  is 
twofold,  political  and  economic,  and  that  the  latter 
form  has  become  much  the  more  important. -' By 
economic  democracy  is  meant  the  movement  toward  a 
more  general  and  more  equitable  distribution  of  eco- 
nomic power  and  goods  and  oj)portunities.  At  present 
this  economic  democracy  shows,  even  in  our  country, 
a   strong   tendency    to   become    secular    if    not   anti- 


162  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Christian.  Here  a^^ain  we  are  dealing  with  the  actual 
facts  of  today.  Consequently,  unless  the  clerpj'  shall 
he  ahlo  and  willing  to  understand,  appreciate,  an  i 
syinj)athetically  direct  the  aspirations  of  econoiuic 
democracy,  it  will  inevitably  heconie  more  and  more 
unchristian,  and  pervert  all  too  rapidly  a  larger  and 
larger  proportion  of  our  Catholic  population. 


VII 
THE  MORAL  ASPECTS  OF  SPECULATION 

Taken  in  its  narrowest  sense,  the  word  speculation 
describes  transactions  that  are  made  for  the  sole 
purpose  of  gettinj^  a  j)rofit  from  chan^^es  in  i)rice. 
This  is  the  sense  in  which  it  will  l)e  used  in  this  j;aper. 
Furthermore,  the  discussion  will  be  confined  to  opera- 
tions on  the  stock  and  produce  exchan^'cs.  The 
speculator,  then,  buys  and  sells  i>roj)crty  because  he 
expects  to  realize  a  pain  from  changes  in  its  price,  not 
because  he  expects  to  be  a  sharer  in  its  earnin^'s.  The 
reason  that  he  does  not  intend  to  profit  by  the  earninj^s 
of  the  i)roperty  that  he  ostensibly  buys  and  sells  is  to 
be  found  in  the  fact  that  his  control  of  the  [)ropcrty 
will  be  eitlier  too  brief  to  secure  the  actual  earnings  or 
too  indefinite  to  create  earnings.  The  former  is  the 
usual  case  of  speculation  in  stock,  the  latter,  of  sj)ecula- 
tion  in  produce. 

Some  examples  will  make  clearer  this  distinction 
between  the  speculator  and  the  ordinary  investor  or 
trader.  The  man  who  buys  railway  stocks  merely 
to  sell  them  in  a  few  days  at  an  expected  advance  is  a 
speculator;  the  man  who  buys  them  to  hold  permanently 
for  the  sake  of  the  dividends  that  they  will  yield  is 
not  a  speculator.  The  former  looks  to  price  changes 
for  his  gains,  the  latter  to  proi)erty  earnings.  Again, 
two  men  buy  wheat  on  the  board  of  trade:  the  first  is 
a  miller  who  wants  wheat  to  grind;  the  second  is  a 
speculator  who  has  no  particular  use  for  wheat.     He 

ics 


101  The  CiirHCH  and  Socialism 

docs  not  intend  to  clianf^c  its  form  in  any  way  or  hring 
it  nearer  to  tlie  consumer;  his  interest  in  it  is  confined 
solely  to  its  fluctuations  in  price.  From  these  he 
expects  to  make  liis  j)rofit.  The  miller,  on  the  other 
hand,  will  add  utility  to  the  wheat  by  converting  it  into 
flour.  His  profit  will  be  in  the  nature  of  a  payment  for 
this  productive  and  social  service.  In  like  maimer, 
the  dividends  received  by  the  genuine  investor  in 
railway  stocks  w  ill  be  a  return  for  the  use  of  his  cai)ital 
in  a  pro<luctive  business.  Both  he  and  the  miller  are 
producers  of  utility,  while  th.e  speculative  buyer  of 
stocks  and  the  speculative  buyer  of  wheat  add  nothing 
to  the  utility  of  any  j)ro[)erty — make  no  contribution 
to  production. 

Pure  speculation  on  the  exchanges  difi'ers,  therefore, 
from  ordinary  trade  a!id  investment  in  its  efTect  upon 
the  production  of  utility  and  in  the  source  of  its  gains. 
These  are  in  reality  t^\o  aspects  of  the  same  economic 
fact.  It  is  also  unicpie  in  the  manner  in  which  its 
contracts  are  completed,  or  "settled."  I  have  sj)oken 
of  the  si)eculator  as  oslen.sibly  buying  and  selling. 
In  purely  speculative  purchases  and  sales  there  is  no 
genuine  transfer  of  goods.  The  stocks  bought  are  not, 
in  any  adequate  sense,  brought  into  the  possession  and 
control  of  the  purchaser,  but  are  usually  "carried" 
by  his  broker  until  they  are  sold.  The  excej^tions  to 
this  rule  are  not  of  great  importar.ce  and  need  not  con- 
cern us  here.  The  produce  bought — wheat,  cotton, 
petroleum,  etc. — is  not  moved  an  inch  in  any  direction. 
When  the  buyer  completes  one  of  these  transactions 


Moral  Aspects  of  Specul.\tiox  165 

he  merely  receives  or  pays  out  a  sum  based  on  the 
extent  to  which  the  price  of  the  goods  in  question  lias 
risen  or  fallen.  The  mechanism  of  these  settlen:ents 
falls  outside  the  scope  of  this  paper.  It  sufhces  to 
point  out  that  speculative  contracts  are  settled  by  a 
payn^.ent  of  price  difTerences  instead  of  by  a  genuine 
delivery  of  goods.  In  effect  and  intention  they  are 
substantially  wagers  on  the  course  of  prices. 

Indiscriminate   apologists   for   si)eculation   and   the 
exchanges    are   fond    of    insisting   on    the   productive 
services  of  so-called  si)eculators  who  gather  and  store 
up  goods  during  a  period  of  plenty  and  dispose  of  them 
during  a  i)eriod  of  scarcity,  or  who  carry  goods  from  a 
place  where  they  are  abundant  to  a  place  where  they 
are   in   greater  demand.     Hence   they   conclude   that 
speculation,    i.    e.,    all    speculation,    is    useful.     Such 
reasoning  betrays  confusion  of  thought.     ^^  ith  specu- 
lators in  the  sense  just  mentioned  we  have  nothing  to 
do  in  this  place.     Besides,  their  social  worth  is  obvious. 
Nor  are  we  concerned  with  the  exchanges,  as  such. 
Their   original    function    was   a    very    necessary    one, 
namely,  to  serve  as  meeting  places  for  those  who  wished 
to  buy  and  sell  real  goods.     They  still  retain  that 
function  in  so  far  as  they  constitute  a  market  i)lace  for 
permanent  investors  and  for  manufacturers  and  pro- 
ductive traders.     These  productive  transactions,  how- 
ever, have  become  subordinated  to  purely  speculative 
operations,  so  that,  according  to  consci-vative  estimates, 
fully  90  per  cent  of  the  business  done  on  the  exchanges 
is  of  the  latter  character. 


166  The  Church  and  Socialism 

Now  this  kind  of  speculation,  as  already  pointed  out. 
is  non-i)roductive.  It  creates  no  utility,  either  of 
time,  place,  or  form;  that  is  to  say,  it  neither  distributes 
goods  over  intervals  of  time  or  space  nor  puts  them 
through  any  process  of  manufacture.  Does  it  perform 
a  social  service  of  any  kind?  If  it  tloes,  there  will  arise 
a  presumption  that  it  is  morally  good. 

Prof.  Henry  C.  Emery  (*'Sj)e(ulation  on  the  Stock 
and  Produce  Excham^es  of  the  I'nited  States,"  Mac- 
millan)  strongly  maintains  that  organized  specula- 
tion, of  the  kind  that  we  are  di.scussing,  is  of  great 
service  to  legitimate  trade.  Since  the  market  for 
great  staples,  like  grain  and  cotton,  so  runs  his  argu- 
ment, has  l)ecome  a  world-market,  the  large  dealers 
in  these  goods  must  not  only  buy,  store,  and  move 
them,  but  also  take  extraordinary  risks  of  chang- 
ing prices.  These  risks  are  extraordinary  because  they 
extend  over  a  long  period  of  time  and  arc  subject  to 
world-wide  trade  conditions.  What  the  dealers  need, 
then,  is  "a  distinct  body  of  men  to  relieve  them  of  the 
speculative  element  of  their  business."  The  profes- 
sional oi)erators  on  the  produce  exchanges  constitute 
just  such  a  class.  The  wheat  merchant  buys  a 
quantity  of  wheat  in  the  northwest  for  shipment  to 
Liverpool,  where  he  intends  to  sell  it  some  time  later. 
But  the  price  of  wheat  may  fall  before  that  time 
arrives.  Here  arises  the  element  of  risk.  To  avoid 
it,  he  immediately  sells  to  a  speculator,  for  future 
delivery,  an  equal  quantity  of  "paper"  wheat.  The 
delivery  of  this  "paper"  wheat,  or,  rather,  the  settle- 


MoR.\L  Aspects  of  Speculation  167 

ment  of  this  speculative  contract,  is  to  take  place 
about  the  same  time  that  his  cargo  of  actual  wheat  is 
to  be  delivered  and  sold  in  Liverpool.  If  in  the  mean- 
time the  i)rice  of  wheat  falls  he  will  lose  on  his  actual 
wheat,  but  he  will  pain  on  his  "paper"  wheat.  For 
when  a  man  sells  any  commodity  in  the  si)eculative 
market  for  future  delivery,  his  interest  is  to  have  the 
price  of  that  commodity  fall.  Thus  he  gains  the 
difference  between  the  i)rice  of  the  article  when  he 
sold  it  and  its  jjrice  at  the  time  of  delivery,  or  settle- 
ment. Hence,  by  means  of  this  "  hedge  "  sale  the  wheat 
merchant  is  secured  against  loss  on  his  cargo  of  actual 
wheat.  Sales  of  this  kind  are  a  sort  of  insurance  that 
lessen  both  the  possibilities  of  great  profit  and  the  risks 
of  groat  loss.  It  is  said  that  nine-tenths  of  the  wheat 
stored  in  the  elevators  of  the  nortliw  est  is  "sold  against " 
in  this  way  ("Proceedings  of  Twelfth  Annual  Meet- 
ing of  American  Economic  Association,"  p.  110). 

So  much  for  speculation  in  produce:  s{)eculation  in 
stocks,  it  is  maintained,  enables  the  small  investor  to 
have  within  reach  a  class  of  men  "ready  to  assimie  all 
the  risk  of  buying  and  selling  his  security,  and  a  market 
that  fixes  prices  by  which  he  can  intelligently  invest." 
The  army  of  professional  speculators  stand  prej)ared 
at  any  time  to  buy  or  sell  any  kind  of  stocks  that  are 
at  all  marketable,  while  their  incessant  buying  and 
selling  keeps  the  market  active  and  the  quotations  of 
the  different  securities  at  their  proper  level.  The 
whole  function  of  organized  sj^eculation  is  summed  up 
to   be:   taking   the  great   risks  of  fluctuating  values, 


168  Thk  Cni  i{rn  and  Socialism 

reducing  these  fluctuations  to  a  minimum,  and  pro- 
viding an  active  market  for  produce  and  securities. 

Tlic  obvious  ails^ver  to  tlie  above  argument  is  that 
traders  in  produce  should  take  tlie  risks  of  fluctuating 
prices  themselves.  At  j)resent,  indeed,  tiiey  socm  un- 
willing to  do  so,  because  the  si)cculators  stand  ready 
to  do  it  for  them.  But  it  is  dilHcult  to  see  how  the 
public  would  sufTor  if  traders,  importers,  and  manu- 
facturers were  compelled  to  take  all  the  risks  incident 
to  their  business,  instead  of  handing  them  over  to  a 
special  class.  I'nder  such  an  arrangement  many  of 
them  wouUl  doubtless  go  to  the  wall,  but  the  com- 
munity would  be  tiie  gainer  through  the  elimination 
of  the  unfit,  nesidcs,  there  is  rea.son  to  believe  that 
the  superior  knowledge  of  market  conditions  possessed 
by  the  professional  speculators,  and  their  work  in 
reducing  the  range  of  price  fluctuations,  is  very  nuich 
overestimated.  At  any  rate,  there  .seems  to  be  no 
good  reason  why  the  capable  dealer  or  manufacturer 
could  not  acquire  a  sufficient  amount  of  this  same 
knowledge  and  foresight.  To  set  aj)art  a  body  of  men 
for  the  sole  i)uri)ose  of  dealing  in  ri^ks  seems  to  be 
carrying  the  princij)le  of  division  of  labor  unnecessarily 
far,  especially  when  these  men  manage  to  charge  the 
iiigh  price  for  their  services  that  is  obtained  by  the  j>ro- 
fessional  speculators  of  our  produce  exchanges. 

As  to  stock  sj>eculators,  it  may  be  reasonably  ad- 
mitted that  they  know  tlie  true  value  of  tliC  various 
securities  more  accurately  than  the  small  investors, 
and  that  they  are  able  to  fi.\  more  correct  prices  than 


Moral  Aspects  of  Speculation  169 

would  be  possible  without  their  activity.  Yet  if 
there  were  no  dealing  in  stocks,  except  for  permanent 
investment,  tliere  would  still  be  a  stock  market. 
That  is  to  say,  if  there  were  no  speculators,  and  if 
stocks  were  bought  solely  for  the  sake  of  their  dividends, 
it  would  still  be  possible  for  an  investor  to  buy  them  at 
quotations  sufliciently  correct  and  stable.  This  fact  is 
exemplified  today  in  the  case  of  numerous  securities 
that  are  not  dealt  in  by  speculators  nor  listed  on  the 
exchanges.  It  is  worthy  of  note  that  two  prominent 
German  economists,  who  maintain  that  the  produce 
exchange  is  a  necessary  institution,  declare  that  the 
stock  exchange  is  "an  unnecessary  and  injurious  one." 
The  institution  of  organized  speculation  is  not  only  of 
doubtful  benefit  to  the  community,  but  i)roduccs  serious 
public  evils.  Only  tho.se  who  l.ave  expert  knowledge 
of  market  conditions  can,  in  the  long  run,  make  money 
on  the  exchanges.  These  are  the  prominent  i)rofes- 
sional  speculators,  the  "big  o])erators,"  as  they  are 
often  called.  The  great  majority  of  all  the  others 
who  speculate,  namely,  the  outside  public,  either  know 
nothing  of  the  intricacies  of  the  market,  or  rely  on 
"inside  information"  that  is  worse  than  useless  because 
misleading.  Out  of  the  losses  of  this  cla.ss  comes  the 
greater  part  of  the  gains  of  the  big  o})erators.  One 
proof  of  this  is  seen  in  the  fact  that,  when  the  general 
public  and  the  small  operators  desert  the  exchanges 
after  being  fleec-ed,  speculative  activity  is  cliecked 
until  such  time  as  the  "small  fry"  begin  operations 
anew.     And  yet  the  general  public  continues  to  patro- 


170  The  Chirc  ii  and  Socialism 

nize  the  centers  of  speculation  in  ever-increasing  num- 
bers, notwithstanding  the  lessons  of  tlie  past.  Thus 
the  chief  losses  of  speculation  are  borne  by  those  who 
can  least  afTord  to  bear  them. 

Sjieculation  absorbs  a  considerable  amount  of  the 
community's  capital  and  directive  enerpj'.  It  diverts 
money  from  productive  enter])rises  and  engages  the 
activity  of  men  who,  if  removed  from  the  unhealthy 
atmosphere  of  the  exchanges,  would  be  of  great  service 
to  the  worhl  of  industry.  By  holding  out  to  its  votaries 
the  hope  of  getting  rich  quickly,  it  discourages  industry 
an«I  thrift  and  makes  men  worshipers  of  the  goddess  of 
chance.  It  imbues  thousands  with  the  persuasion 
that  ac(|uiring  wealth  is  a  colossal  game  in  which  they 
are  to  be  fi)rtune's  favorites.  The  career  of  the  '*  Frank- 
lin Syndicate"  in  Brooklyn,  in  IHDO,  is  a  typical 
instance  of  the  way  in  which  those  who  have  caught 
the  speculative  fever  disregard  the  laws  of  probability 
and  the  laws  of  wealth.  The  promoters  of  this  company 
agreed  to  |)ay  10  j)er  cent  i)er  week  on  all  dejjosits, 
pretending  that  they  were  enabled  to  do  so  through  their 
"inside  information"  of  the  stock  market.  Within  a 
few  weeks  they  took  in  nearly  one  million  dollars, 
showing  how  large  is  the  number  of  peoj>le  who  regard 
the  stock  exchange  as  an  institution  that  creates  wealth 
without  labor. 

To  the  question  that  was  asked  above — Does 
speculation  perform  any  social  service? — the  correct 
answer,  then,  would  seem  to  be  in  the  negative.  At 
any  rate,  its  good  features,  which  are  problematical. 


Moral  Aspects  of  Speculation  171 

are  more  than  offset  by  its  bad  features,  which  are 
grave  and  unmistakable.  Hence  there  is  no  reason 
to  regard  organized  speculation  as  morally  good 
because  of  any  economic  or  social  function  that  it 
exercises. 

If  the  institution  of  speculation  is  at  best  of  doubtful 
moral  and  social  worth,  what  are  we  to  .say  concerning 
the  moral  character  of  th.e  indiiidiial  act  of  speculating 
in  stocks  or  prmlucc?     According  to  Funck-Brentano, 
.speculation  on  the  exchanges,  altl  ough  not  highway 
robbery,  is  "robbery  according  to  the  rules  of  an  art  so 
refined  that   the  keenest  lawyer  cannot    exactly    de- 
termine   the   point    where   fraud    begins   and    legality 
ceases,"     This    condemnation,    hov.ever,    .seems    too 
sweeping;  for  many  of  th.e  tran.sactions  on  the  exchanges 
are  made  by  men  who  have  no  intention  of  acting 
dishonestly.     At  the  worst,  they  are  actuated  merely 
by  the  spirit  of  the  gambler.     Bnt  it  is  true  that  moral 
and  immoral  operations  arc  often  inextricably  mingled, 
so  that  it  is  extremely  diff  cult,  no  less  for  the  moralist 
than  the  lawyer,  to  separate  the  good  from  the  bad. 
For  our  puri)ose  it  will  be  best  perhaps  to  point  out 
the  dishonesty  of  .some  of  the  more  notorious  practices 
and  the  extent  to  which  they  are  followed,  and  then 
discuss  the  morality  of  speculative  tran.sactions  that 
are  entered  into  with  the  most  upright  intentions. 

A  favorite  method  of  manipulating  values  is  to 
disseminate  false  reports  concerning  property  or  market 
conditions.  A  description  of  the  various  ways  in 
which  this  scheme  is  practiced  is  not  possible  nor  neces- 


172  The  Church  and  Socialism 

sarj'  here,  but  a  t\'})ical  instance  may  le  piven.  In 
the  si)riiig  of  1900  a  prominent  manufacturing  com- 
pany, having  its  headquarters  in  New  York,  sent  out 
a  report  tliat  a  tlividend  was  to  be  immcJiatcly  de- 
clared on  its  stock.  This  caused  tlie  stock  to  rise 
several  points,  and  the  directors  and  their  friends  then 
"sold  for  a  falh"  Next  the  rei)ort  concerning  the 
dividend  was  denounced  as  false,  and  ofTicial  announce- 
ment was  made  that  the  company's  condition  did  not 
warrant  the  jiaymcnt  of  a  dividend.  Immediately 
values  began  to  fall,  and  those  who  had  sold  "short" 
bought  in  at  a  profit,  while  the  small  holders  of  stock 
became  panic-stricken  and  sold  tlieir  iioldings  to  the 
larger  ones.  This  last  phase  of  manipulation,  which 
consists  in  dcj)!cssing  values  for  the  i)uri)ose  of  getting 
possession  of  the  stock  of  tlie  small  holders,  is  ex- 
pressively termed  "shaking  out." 

The  industrious  circulation  of  false  reports  is  an 
essential  part  of  the  process  kno^\n  as  "supportirg." 
The  owners  of  some  stock  tl  at  is  v. orth  little  serd  out 
glowing  accounts  of  its  desirability  as  an  investn  ei.t, 
and  of  the  earning  capacity  of  the  property  tl  at  it 
represents.  At  tlie  same  time  they  begin  to  n  al  e 
purely  speculative  purchases  on  a  large  scale.  Tl  e 
intention  is  to  deceive  the  public  into  tl  e  belief  tl  at  t!  e 
owners  have  confdei  ce  in  tl  e  future  of  tl  eir  owr.  piop- 
erty.  The  result  is  that  tl  e  price  of  tl  e  stock  rises. 
When  it  has  reached  what  tie  conspiiators  regard  as  its 
maximum,  they  sell  both  their  cash  stock  and  their 
purely   speculative   purchases   to   a  confiding  public. 


Moral  Aspects  of  Speculation  17.'J 

Then    tlie    stock   rapidly   sinks    to   its   proper   level. 

Another  way  of  manipulating  is  by  "wash  sales." 
One  or  more  oi)erators  sclene  to  depress  tl:e  quotations 
of  a  particular  stock  by  making  a  show  of  enormous 
sales.  The  natural  effect  of  such  wholesale  selling 
when  reported  on  the  stock  market  is  to  cause  a  fall, 
but  the  peculiarity  of  these  transactions  is  that  they 
are  not  .sales  at  all,  for  the  same  person  is  both  buyer 
and  seller.  lie  em[)loys  two  brokers,  one  of  whom 
sells  to  the  other.  Thus  the  supposed  sales  are  all 
counterfeit,  since  the  supposed  buyers  have  no  exist- 
ence. The  same  principle  can  be  carried  out  in  at- 
tempts to  inflate  values,  and  in  the  case  of  produce  as 
well  as  stock. 

A  simpler  form  of  manipulation  is  the  attempt  to 
raise  or  depress  the  value  of  a  stock  by  extensive 
genuii.e  buying  or  selling.  \Miere  several  operators 
act  together  the  operation  is  called  a  "j)ool."  An 
extreire  instance  of  continued  buyiiig  for  a  rise  is  th.e 
"corr.er. "  If  it  is  successful,  the  result  is  that  one  or 
a  few  men  get  control  of  sufficient  of  the  available 
supply  of  a  certain  [)roduce  or  stock  to  create  what  is 
practically  a  nionopoly,  and  thus  force  up  prices  almost 
at  will.     The  corner,  however,  is  rarely  successful. 

The  schemes  above  described  are  some  of  the  more 
common  forms  of  manipulation.  Clearly  they  are  all 
immoral,  and  the  gains  accruing  from  them  dishonest. 
Closely  allied  to  false  rumors  as  a  source  of  unjust 
profit  is  the  special  and  secret  information  that  is  so 
often  turned  to  account  on  the  exchanges.     When  this 


174  The  Chirch  and  Socialism 

special  information  concerns  a  movement  of  prices 
tliat  will  come  about  naturally,  not  artificially,  and 
when  the  information  is  acquired  hy  the  expenditure  of 
some  labor,  either  intellectual  or  physical,  or  when  the 
information  is  not  entirely  certain — there  would  seem 
to  he  nothing  wrong  in  making  use  of  it  for  profit. 
But  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  the  profit  will  be  honest 
if  any  of  these  conditions  be  wanting.  Sui^imsc  that 
a  certain  stock  is  about  to  be  mani{)ulatcd  upward. 
Now  if  an  "outsider"  is  appri.sed  of  this  fact,  and  buys 
some  of  the  stock  to  sell  at  the  advance,  he  is  sim|)!y 
realizing  unique  j)ossibilitics  of  stealing.  lie  defrauds 
the  other  party  to  the  contract;  for  artificially  pro<luce<l 
gains  for  one  man  mean,  in  the  long  run,  artificially 
produced  los.ses  for  another.  But  suppo.se  that 
an  advance  in  the  price  of  a  certain  property 
is  due  to  the  natural  laws  and  conditions  of  trade. 
In  that  case  a  man  who  foresees  the  advance,  by  reason 
of  excej)tional  skill  and  diligence  in  studying  tlie  con- 
ditions of  the  market,  may  rightfully  invest  in  the 
property  and  reap  a  profit  that  will  be  in  .some  sense 
the  reward  of  ability.  Again,  if  a  man  without  exer- 
cising labor  or  skill  obtains  special  information  that 
is  not  entirely  trust\\  orthy,  his  gains  from  a  speculation 
made  on  this  basis  might  be  regarded  as  the  reward  of 
risk-taking.  But  if  the  information  is  practically 
certain,  and  got  without  any  personal  expenditure  of 
any  kind,  the  morality  of  gains  coming  even  from  a 
natural  movement  in  prices  will  usually  be  very  ques- 
tionable.    Obtained  as  they  are  from  differences  in 


Moral  Aspects  of  Speculation  175 

price,  their  source  will  in  most  cases  be  the  pocket  of 
some  one  who  is  not  possessed  of  this  special  knowledge. 
The  transaction  is  substantially  a  wager  in  which  one 
party  takes  the  other  at  a  disadvantage.  These  are 
the  principles:  in  practice  it  would  seem  that  most  of 
the  profits  arising  from  secret  information  on  tlic 
exchanges  are  unlawful. 

To  what  extent  do  nianij>ulation  and  the  various 
otlier  forms  of  immoral  sj)cculation  prevail?  A  preci.se 
and  definite  answer  to  this  question  is,  of  cour.se,  not 
obtainable,  but  it  is  safe  to  say  that  on  the  more 
prominent  exchanges  of  the  country  questionable 
methods  are  in  very  common  u.se.  "Schaeffle,  who  is 
not  only  an  eminent  political  economist,  but  has  been 
minister  of  commerce  to  one  of  th.e  great  political 
powers  of  Europe,  says  that  when  he  became  acquainted 
with  the  bourse  he  gave  ufj  believing  any  longer  in  the 
economic  harmonies,  and  declared  theft  to  be  the 
princi}>le  of  modern  Euro[)ean  commerce"  (John 
Rae,  "Contemporary  Socialism,"  p.  3'-2C).  A  meniljcr 
of  the  New  York  Stock  Exchange  declared  a  few- 
years  ago  that  50  per  cent  of  the  operations  in  that 
institution  were  attemjjts  to  manipulate  prices.  The 
maneuvers  of  the  great  operators  have  often  been 
compared  to  a  game  in  which  the  successful  players 
use  loaded  dice  or  marked  cards.  Indeed,  many 
close  observers  of  the  speculative  market  assert  that, 
in  the  long  run,  money  is  made  only  by  tho.se  who 
resort  to  questionable  devices.  This  is  probably  an 
exaggeration,  but  we  can  readily  see  that  when  men 


170  The  Church  and  Socialism 

havinj?  ^Tcat  power,  the  hig  o[)erator.s,  are  crpapcd  in 
operations  ^^llcse  success  (.'ej  ends  solely  on  the  n  ove- 
ment  of  prices,  they  \\'\\\  be  strorply  temj  ted  to  isc 
their  power  in  order  to  influei  cc  this  noven  ei.t.  It  is 
impossible  to  watch  tlieir  tactics  for  ary  lenpth  of 
time  without  concluding  tliat  they  repaid  n  anii>ula- 
tion  in  some  form  as  an  essential  feature  of  sj  eculative 
oi)erations.  The  stock  irarkct  columns  of  aln  est  aiy 
morning  newspai)er  will  show  tliat  on  the  pieceding 
day  tliere  was  "an  assault  by  the  bears"  on  this  or 
that  stock,  and  that  under  "constant  hanurerinp" 
the  stock  fell  one  or  more  points.  Or,  we  are  inforn:cd 
that,  "after  a  rally  by  the  bulls,"  such  a  stock  "went 
skyward." 

So  far,  at  least,  as  the  big  operators  are  concerned,  the 
exchange  is  a  ba  tlefield  on  w hich  two  opjjosing  armies, 
the  bulls  and  the  l)ears,  aie  constai  tly  enpaped  at 
close  ranpc.  "All  is  fair  in  war,"  and  it  is  not  surpris- 
ing that  in  the  sj)eculators'  warfare  nice  ethical  dis- 
criminations as  to  n  ethods  should  lie  overlooked. 
Manipulation  is  regarded  as  lawful,  since  it  is  n.erely 
fighting  the  enemy  with  his  own  weapons.  The  intel- 
lectual atmosphere  of  tie  bourse  is  so  befopped  that 
the  moral  vision  of  its  l.abitnes  becon.es  easily  dulled. 
The  mental  qualities  that  are  most  frequently  called 
into  play  among  j^rofessional  speculators  are  those 
that  characterize  the  activities  of  the  professional 
gambler,  "A  man's  nerve  is  put  to  the  highest 
tension;  his  mind  is  always  on  th.e  stretch;  not  guiding 
the  policy  of  a  great  commercial  venture,  but  bearing 


Moral  Aspects  of  Speculation  177 

up  under,  and  w  atclung  over,  t^  e  fluctuations  of  some 
stock  which,  in  tl  e  oi)inion  of  tl  e  n  ajoiity,  and  by 
virti  e  of  \vl  at  las  I.een  j  aid  for  it  at  tie  oi.tset,  is 
wortli  only  so  much,  and  which  1  e  1  as  estim.ated  at  a 
different  value.  Tl  e  trade  is  not  a  noble  one,  and  tl  ere 
are  few  noble  men  engaged  in  it"  {Frazer's  Magazine, 
vol.  94,  p.  81). 

So  much  for  i)ractices  of  si)eculation  that  are  cer- 
tainly dishonest:  what  al)out  the  acts  of  a  si)eculator 
who  has  no  desire  to  take  advantage  of  any  unlawful 
practice?  Is  it  wrong  to  make  a  purchase  or  sale  on 
the  exchange  solely  for  the  j)ur|)ose  of  realizing  a  profit 
out  of  a  ch.ange  in  prices?  The  purchaser  or  seller,  we 
will  suppose,  seeks  no  dishonest  advantage,  but  is 
willing  to  take  all  tl  e  risks  of  an  unfavorable  turn  in 
prices.  We  cannot  say  that  such  a  trarisaction  is,  in 
itself,  wrong.  At  the  worst  it  is  merely  a  wager  on 
I)riccs,  and  wagers  are  not  immoral,  i)rovided:  (1) 
that  those  who  take  i)art  in  them  have  the  right  to 
di.spose  of  the  property  that  they  hazard;  (2)  that 
neither  fraud  nor  violence  be  used;  (.'3)  that  the  chances 
for  winning  be  apj)roximately  equal,  so  far  as  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  participants  is  concerned;  (4)  that  the  parties 
risk  no  more  than  tl  ey  can  afford  consistently  \\ith  the 
duties  of  their  condition  ai:d  calling;  and  (5)  that  the 
transaction  in  question  is  not  forbidden  by  the  positive 
law.  All  of  these  conditions  may  easily  be  present  in 
a  speculative  deal;  consequently  th.ere  may  be  nothing 
in  it  contrary  to  the  moral  law.  This  statement  applies 
to  an  act  of  spaculati  m  i;i  the  ab.tact,  not  in  the 
actual  conditions  of  to-day. 


178  The  riiriuii  and  Socialism 

For  ^\e  have  seen  that  from  the  side  of  economic 
welfare  the  wliole  institution  of  non-productive  specula- 
tion is  in  all  prohahility  useless;  that  from  the  side  of 
social  welfare  it  involves  many  grave  evils;  and  that 
from  the  side  of  morality  its  transactions  are  to  an 
alarming  extent  carried  on  by  dishonest  methods.  In 
the  light  of  these  facts,  we  may  safely  conclude  that, 
so  far  as  the  principal  exchanges  of  th.e  country  are 
concerned,  it  is  morally  impossible  for  a  man  who 
spends  all  or  the  greater  part  of  his  time  speculating, 
to  avoid  all  the  dishonest  practices  of  speculation. 
Secondly,  we  would  seem  to  be  justified  in  asserting 
that  men  who,  even  without  any  intention  to  be  dis- 
honest, participate  to  any  extent  in  speculative  transac- 
tions on  these  exchanges,  are  engaging  in  actions  that 
nuiy  easily  be  morally  quenlionahle.  As  we  said  above, 
the  isolated  act  of  speculation  may  in  itself  be  without 
censure — may  be  no  worse  than  the  |)lacing  of  a  wager — 
but  because  of  its  connection  with  a  questionable 
institution,  and  because  of  its  grave  danger  to  the 
individual  himself,  it  can  never  be  pronounced  licit  in 
the  sense  tiiat  the  transactions  of  ordinary  trade  are 
licit.  The  shadow  of  immorality  is  over  it  always. 
Every  speculative  deal  is  a  participation,  remote  and 
insignificant,  perhaps,  in  what  can  without  exaggera- 
tion be  regarded  as  a  social  and  moral  evil,  namely, 
the  institution  of  organized  speculation.'  Every  an- 
ticipated profit,  almost,  is  in  danger  of  being  promoted 


'  For  a  strong  confirmation  of  this  vii  w,  seo  A.   Crump's   well- 
known  work,   "The  Theory  of  Stock  Speculation." 


Moral  Aspects  of  Specui^vtion  179 

by  illicit  manipulation;  for  the  well-meaning  outsider 
can  seldom  be  certain,  even  if  lie  tries,  that  movements 
of  price  by  wliich  he  is  the  gainer  have  not  been  artifi- 
cially produced.  Every  man  who  yields  to  the  seductive 
temi)tation  to  sj)eculate  feeds  the  passion  of  avarice, 
strengthens  the  ignoble  desire  to  profit  by  the  losses 
of  his  fellows,  cultivates  a  dislike  for  honest,  productive 
labor,  and  exposes  himself  to  financial  ruin.  Hence, 
no  man  who  is  fully  acquainte  I  with  the  character  and 
effects  of  sj)eculation,  and  who  is  possessed  of  a  fine 
moral  nature,  will  ever  participate  in  the  purely 
speculative  operations  of  either  the  stock  or  i\\c  produce 
exchanges  of  our  largest  cities. 

The  question — "Is  speculation  wrong.^" — cannot, 
tlierefore,  be  answered  categorically.  The  phenomena 
with  which  it  deals  are  too  complex.  Ikit,  with  the 
help  of  the  distinctions  above  drawn,  an  answer  may 
be  obtained  that  is  fairly  definite.  To  resume,  then: 
speculation  as  an  institution  is  economically  of  doubtful 
utility;  socialbj,  it  is  productive  of  great  and  wide- 
spread evils;  and  umralbj,  it  is  vitiated  by  a  very  con- 
siderable amount  of  dishonest  "deals"  and  j)ractices. 


VIII 

FALSE    A\D    TRUE      CONCEPTIONS    OF 

WELFARE 

I 

Between  the  ages  of  sixteen  .iiul  fifty,  tic  great 
majority  of  Americans  unceasingly  strive  and  hope  to 
"better  their  position"  hy  increasing  their  incomes, 
and  thereby  raising  themselves  above  the  social  and 
economic  j)lane  upon  which  they  have  hitherto  stood. 
In  so  far  as  they  are  successful  in  this  aim,  they  obtain 
an  increased  satisfaction  of  their  n^atcrial  wants. 
Increased  satisfaction  is  inm  cdiatcly  foIlo^\ed  by  a 
st  11  larger  increase,  both  numeiically  and  intensively, 
of  tlie  wants  themselves.  It  l>ecomcs  literally  true 
that  "tl  e  more  nen  1  ave,  tl  e  more  tl  ey  want."  In 
proof  of  this  staten  ent,  all  that  is  recessary  is  to  make 
a  raj)id  survey  of  the  chief  ways  in  which  material 
wants  call  for  satisfaction. 

The  man  who  occupies  a  plain  hou.se  of  seven  or  eight 
rooms  will  expend  a  part  of  his  larger  income  for  a 
better  house.  A  better  house  means,  in  the  first  place, 
a  larger  house.  A  larger  house  will,  usually,  be  built 
of  more  costly  materials.  In  addition,  it  will  demand 
a  greater  quantity  and  a  more  expensive  quality  of 
equii)ment,  furniture,  and  utensils — woodwork,  wall 
paper,  carpets,  chairs,  beds,  tables,  chinaware,  etc. 
It  means  a  larger  outlay  for  "helj)."  It  implies  also  a 
more  "select"  neighborhood  where  land  and,  con- 
sequently, rents  are  higher.     The  cost  of  the  new  house 

180 


False  and  True  Welfare  181 

and  furnishings  may  be,  let  us  say,  $'•20,000  while  the 
old  one  was  built  and  equipped  for  !?j,OJO;  yet  when  the 
occupier's  income  is  still  further  and  in  a  considerable 
degree  increased,  there  will  emerge  in  liis  consciousness, 
or  in  that  of  his  family,  the  want  of  a  still  better  house. 
This  will  necessitate  a  considerably  larger  expenditure 
for  all  the  items  above  eiuimeratcd,  as  well  as  an 
additional  outlay  for  several  others  that  have  hitherto 
been  un though t-of  or  disregarded. 

When  income  permits  a  change  men  are  no  longer 
content  with  plain  and  nourishing  food.  They  must 
have  more  tender  n^.eats,  more  select  vegetables,  richer 
and  more  varied  desserts,  older  and  more  costly  wines, 
and  comi)licated  mixtures  instead  of  plain  beverages. 
The  manner  in  which  the  food  is  served  becomes  more 
formal,  elaborate,  and  expensive;  there  must  be 
many  courses,  more  and  dearer  chinaware,  and  much 
cut  glass.  The  same  process  appears  in  relation  to 
clothing.  After  tlie  demands  of  reasonable  comfort 
have  been  met,  there  will  rise  the  desire  for  a  greater 
number  of  suits,  a  more  frequent  rej)lacement  to 
conform  to  the  fashions,  a  better  quality  of  materials, 
and  a  more  high-priced  tailor.  All  tl.ese  and  many 
other  expansions  of  the  clothing  want  become  operative 
in  the  case  of  men,  and  to  a  ten-fold  degree  in  the  case 
of  women.     Witness  the  single  item  of  jewelry. 

Intimately  connected  with  and  dependent  upon  the 
standard  of  shelter,  food,  and  clothing  is  that  class  of 
wants  that  is  somewhat  inadequately  called  "social." 
With  increased  expenditure  for  the  former,  the  last- 


IR-J  TlIK    CinUCU    AM)    S()(  lAlJ^N! 

named  want  inevitably  becomes  more  complicated  and 
more    costly.     Entertainments    and    "functions"    be- 
come more  frequent  and  more  elaborate;  a  notable 
increase  takes  place  in  the  accessories  of  entertaininp, 
such    as    decorations,    flowers,    attendants,    etc.;    and 
there  is  a  considerable  additional  outlay  for  food  and 
clothing.     Finally,    the    desire    for    amusement    and 
recreation    is    also    capable    of    indefinite    expansion. 
The  person   of   moderate   means  goes   to   the   theater 
occasionally  and  occupies  a  cheap  seat.     The  rich  or 
well-to-do  person  goes  more  frequently,  rides  to  and 
from  the  theater  in  a  carriage,  pays  much  more  for  a 
seat,  and  not  infrequently  buj's  an  elaborate  luncheon 
after  the  performance.     The  pleasure  trips  and  vaca- 
tions of  the  poor  and  the  moderately  situated  consist 
of  trolley  rides  and  a  few  days  spent  in  some  near-by 
town  or  country  district;  those  who  are  rich  enough  to 
afTord    it    possess    carriages    and    automobiles,    .spend 
months  at  the  seaside  or  in  the  mountains,  take  long 
ocean  voyages,  and  n^.ake  extended  sojourns  in  Euroj)e. 
In  the  case  of  all  but  the  few  extremely  rich,  the.se 
five  wants  or  classes  of  wants,  comprised  under  the 
head  of  shelter,  food,  clothing,  "society,"  and  amuse- 
ment, can  be  expanded  indefinitely  and  can  absorb  all 
of  a  man's  income.     No  matter  how  much  a  person 
spends  in  meeting  these  wants,  he  can  still  maintain, 
in  accordance  with  the  language  and  standards  of  th<» 
day,  that  he  has  merely  "bettered  his  social  position." 
Now  this  indefinite  striving  after  indefinite  amounts 
of  material  satisfaction  is  not  an  accidental  feature  of 


False  and  True  Welfare  183 

modern  existence.     It  is  but  the  natural  outcome  of  the 
prevailing    theory    of    Hfe.     "The    old    Christianity," 
says  Paulsen,  who  is  not  medieval  in  his  sympathies, 
"raised  its  eyes  from  the  earth,  which  offered  nothing 
and  promised  notliing,  to  heaven  and  its  supersensuous 
glory.     The  new  age  is  looking  for  heaven  upon  earth; 
it  hopes  to  attain  to  the  perfect  civilization  through 
science,  and  expects  that  this  will  nuike  life  healthy, 
long,    rich,    beautiful,    and    happy"    ("A    System  of 
Et^.ics,"  pp.    130,   140).     According  to  the  dominant 
view,  the  loftiest  object  that  man  can  pursue  is  the 
scientific  knowledge  of  nature— not,  indeed,  for  it.self, 
but  because  of  the  abundance  of  material  goods  that  it 
will  put  at  his  disposal.     Hence  the  practical  conclusion 
of  the  practical  man  is  that  he  should  .seek  to  enjoy 
as  much  of  these  goods  as  possible.     "It  is  a  favorite 
principle  of  the  ethical  materialism  of  our  days  that  a 
man  is  all  the  happier  the  more  wants  he  has,  if  he  has 
at  the  same  time  sufficient  means  for  their  satisfaction" 
(Lange's  "History  of  Materialism."  p.  230).     Such  is 
the  prevailing  conception  of  "wider  and  fuller  life." 
Since  life  is  merely,  or  at  any  rate  chiefly,  an  aggregate 
of  sensations,  more  abundant  life  means  tl:e  multi- 
plication  of   sensations,   possessions,   and   pleasurable 
experiences. 

This  theory  of  life  is  evidently  false.  Not  the  number 
but  the  kind  of  wants  that  a  man  satisfies  is  the  im- 
portant thing.  Reasonable  human  life  is  primarily 
qualitative.  It  consists  in  thinking,  knowing,  com- 
muning, loving,  serving,  and  giving,  rather  than   in 


184  TiiK  Church  and  Socialism 

having  or  enjoying.  Wlien  tlie  demands  of  liealth 
and  moderate  comfort  have  been  supplied,  additional 
sense-satisfactions  contribute  little  or  nothing  to  the 
development  of  body,  heart,  or  mind.  They  necessi- 
tate an  expenditure  of  time,  energj',  and  resources  that 
might  be  employed  in  building  up  the  higher  and 
rational  side  of  num.  Tlicy  exert  a  damaging  influence 
upon  morals,  mind,  health,  and  happiness.  I/Ct  us 
view  the  situation  in  some  detail. 

First,  as  to  morals  and  character.  The  qualities 
that  are  fostered  through  the  activities  of  "society" 
are,  in  great  part,  uiulesirable  and  ignoble.  This 
assertion  applies  not  only  to  the  doings  of  the  most 
wealtliy  and  exclusive  "set,"  but  to  all  of  those  more 
or  less  formal  and  pretentious  "functions"  whose 
participants  regard  themselves  as  "in  .society,"  though 
they  may  belong  within  the  middle  class.  Except  in 
a  very  small  proportion  of  cases,  the  functions  and 
gatherings  of  "society"  do  not  make  for  true  culture  or 
for  intellectual  improvement.  Their  primary  object 
is  to  entertain,  but  they  have  come  to  include  so  many 
factitious  elements  in  the  matter  of  dress,  decorations, 
feasting,  and  other  accessories,  that  one  of  their  most 
common  by-products  is  a  group  of  unlovely  and  un- 
christian qualities.  One  of  the  most  marked  of  these 
qualities  is  tl.e  desire  for  social  preeminence,  the 
passion  for  distinction,  the  wish  to  be  thought  at  least 
as  prominent  as  any  other  person  in  one's  social  set. 
Thus  the  desire  to  excel,  which  is  in  itself  laudable  and 
useful,  becomes,  in  the  case  of  a  large  number  of  society 


False  and  True  Welfare  185 

persons,  an  ambition  to  outdo  one's  neighbors  in  the 
splendor  of  gowns,  the  elaborateness  of  feasting,  and 
not  infrequently  in  the  ostentation  and  costliness  of  the 
entertainment  generally.  In  the  pursuit  of  this  am- 
bition are  developed  the  vices  of  envy,  hj-pocrisy, 
vanity,  and  snobbishness. 

The  realm  of  the  animal  appetites  presents  another 
instance  of  the  damaging  effects  of  the  excessive  pursuit 
of  material  satisfactions.  In  the  matter  of  food  and 
drink  the  line  between  sufliciency  and  gluttony  is 
easily  passed.  Immoral  indulgence  takes  place  under 
the  name  of  a  more  thorough,  more  discriminating, 
and  more  refined  satisfaction  of  the  desire  for  nourish- 
ment. Those  who  are  guilty  of  tliis  inordinate  in- 
dulgence often  do  not  realize  that  they  are  acting  the 
part  of  annuals  rather  than  of  rational  beings,  in  whom 
the  higher  nature  ought  to  exercise  a  controlling 
influence.  Again,  violations  of  the  j)recej)t  of  chastity 
are  apt  to  increase  rather  than  diminish  when  the 
personal  exi)enditures  of  the  individual  pass  beyond 
the  limits  of  moderate  and  reasonable  comfort.  Ex- 
cessive satisfaction  of  the  other  .seii-ses  creates  increased 
cravings  in  the  sex  apj)etite.  And  these  cravings  are 
less  likely  to  be  resisted,  precisely  because  the  persons 
who  experience  them  have  become  unaccustomed  to 
deny  the  demands  of  the  other  a})i)etites. 

Another  evil  effect  is  the  weakening  of  the  religious 
sense  and  of  the  altruistic  sense.  It  is  a  fact  of  general 
observation  that  after  the  stage  of  moderate  income 
and   plain   living   has   been   passed,   there   follows   in 


186  The  Church  and  Sociausm 

probably  tVe  majority  of  instances  a  decay  of  religious 
fervor  and  of  deep  and  vital  faith.  Tl  e  thinps  of  God 
are  crowded  oi  t,  "cl  oked  by  t'  e  cares  and  ricbes  and 
pleasures  of  life."  Owing  to  tl  e  essei  tial  selfishness 
of  t!  e  process,  inordinate  satisfaction  of  n  aterial  wants 
also  veakens  tie  feelings  of  disinterestedness  and 
generosity.  Hence  tl  e  rule  is  almost  universally  valid 
tl  at  persons  above  tl.e  line  of  moderate  comfort  give 
a  smaller  proportion  of  tl.eir  income  to  charitable  and 
religious  causes  than  those  who  are  at  or  somewhat 
below  tl  at  level. 

Did  men  put  a  true  valuation  upon  material  goods, 
they  would  increase  th.e  proportioti  of  their  income  given 
to  these  causes  wl  erever  an  increase  took  place  in  the 
income  itself.  For  example,  if  tl;e  man  w  ith  an  income 
of  $-2,000  per  year  contributed  3  per  cent  of  this  sum, 
the  man  who  received  $4,000  ought  to  give  more  than 
3  per  cent.  The  bulk  of  the  extra  thousand  dollars 
goes,  in  most  cases,  to  satisfy  less  important  material 
wants;  consequently,  a  larger  proportion  of  it  ought 
to  be  expended  in  meeting  the  higher  want,  that  is, 
benevolence.  What  generally  hai)pens,  however,  is 
that  the  proportion  decreases.  The  explanation  is 
obvious;  tlie  receivers  of  the  larger  incomes  become 
dominated  by  a  false  idea  of  the  relative  values  of 
things,  holding  tie  goods  of  tie  senses  in  higher  esteem 
than  when  tl.eir  income  w  as  smaller. 

Moreover,  tl  ere  are  certain  of  the  higher  comfort 
and  conveniences  whose  net  effect  upon  human  welfare 
is  probably  good,   which   involve   no   self-indulgence 


False  axd  True  Welfare  187 

t^^at  is  act' 1  ally  immoral,  and  yet  which  are  in  a  con- 
sldeable  decree  injurious  to  c^  a-acter.  For  example, 
the  1  abit  of  using  parlor  ca-s,  e'ectric  hells,  and  street 
cars,  in  season  and  out  of  season,  m.akes  us  dependent 
upon  them,  and  renders  us  less  capable  of  that  measure 
of  self-denial  and  of  endurance  which  is  indispensable 
to  the  highest  achievement.  These  and  many  other 
contrivances  of  modern  life  are  undoubtedly  an  obstacle 
to  the  development  of  that  invaluable  ingredient  of 
character  which  consists  in  the  pouter  to  do  without. 
They  contribute  insensibly,  yet  eflectivcly,  to  a  certain 
softness  of  mind,  will,  and  body  which  is  no  advantage 
in  life's  many-sided  struggle.  It  does  not  follow  that 
these  conveniences  ought  not  to  be  utilized  at  all;  it 
follows  that  they  are  not  the  unmixed  blessing  which 
they  are  commonly  assumed  to  be. 

Nowhere  are  the  harmful  effects  of  this  materialistic 
conception  of  life  tl  at  we  are  considering  more  manifest 
than  in  the  i)henomena  associated  with  the  reduced 
birth  rate.  The  delil  erate  limitation  of  ofTspnng  is 
as  yet  chiefly  confined  to  the  middle  and  upper  classes, 
to  the  persons  whose  elementary  and  reasonable  wants 
are  already  fairly  well  supplied.  They  wish  to  be  in  a 
position  to  satisfy  a  larger  number  of  material  wants  in 
themselves  and  to  ensure  the  satisfaction  of  a  still 
larger  number  in  tl  eir  children— if  tley  have  any. 
They  speak  much  of  aiming  at  quality  rather  than 
quantity  in  offspring.  They  do  not  realize  that  the 
special  qualities  developed  in  the  artificially  restricted 
family    are    almost   entirely    materialistic,    while   the 


188  Tin:  CnvRcu  and  So(  ialism 

qualities  that  go  to  make  up  strong  and  virtuous 
characters  are  almost  inevitahlj'  neglected.  In  one 
word,  the  theory  of  life-values,  which  impels  men  and 
women  to  decline  the  burdens  of  a  normal  family, 
makes  for  enervating  self-indulgence  and  perverted 
moral  notions  in  parents,  a  morally  and  physically 
enfeebled  generation  of  children,  a  diminishing  j)oj)ula- 
tion,  and  a  decadent  race. 

So  much  for  some  of  the  damaging  results  to  morals 
and  character.  It  .seems  inevitable  that  mental  powers 
and  activities  nuist  likewise  .'suffer.  A  people  devoted 
to  the  pursuit  of  material  things,  of  ease,  and  of  jtlcasure 
does  not  .seem  to  possess  the  l)est  conditions  for  achieve- 
ment in  the  higher  and  more  arduous  fields  of  mental 
eflfort.  Even  today  an  ever-increasing  proportion  of 
our  college  and  university  students  choose  those  courses 
of  study  that  have  a  "|)racticar'  rather  than  a  theo- 
retical or  academic  object  and  outcome.  Whether  or 
not  this  training  is  as  efTective  as  the  "liberal "  branches 
in  develojiing  the  mental  powers,  those  who  select  it 
will  almost  all  devote  their  energies  in  after  life  to  the 
business  of  money-getting.  This  means  the  exercise 
of  the  lower  powers  of  the  brain  and  intellect.  The 
products  of  their  mental  activity  will  be  material  things 
and  mechanical  progress,  rather  than  the  thoughts  and 
ideas  and  knowledge  that  make  for  the  intellectual, 
moral,  or  spiritual  improvement  of  the  race.  While 
the  proportion  of  our  population  that  is  educated  has 
greatly  increased,  there  is  reason  to  doubt  that  the 
proportion   which   reads  serious,   solid,   and  uplifting 


False  and  True  Welfare  189 

literature  is  any  greater  today  than  it  was  fifty  years 
ago.  The  great  mass  of  tlie  reading  public  is  now 
satisfied  with  the  newspaper,  the  cheap  magazine,  and 
books  of  fiction,  good,  bad,  and  indifferent.  Half  a 
century  ago  the  majority  of  those  who  read  had  access 
to  only  a  few  books,  but  these  were  generally  serious 
and  highclass,  and  were  read  again  and  again.  It  is 
maintained  In-  some  that  the  general  quality  of  litera- 
ture itself  has  deteriorated.  Thus,  Mr.  Frederick 
Harrison,  whose  Positivism  would  naturally  dispose 
him  in  favor  of  the  present  age  and  spirit,  recently 
wrote:  "As  I  look  back  over  the  sixty  years  since  I 
first  began  to  read  for  myself,  English  literature  has 
never  been  so  flat  as  it  is  now.  .  .  .  In  my  student  days, 
say,  the  mid-lO's  and  mid-jO's,  our  poets  were  Tenny- 
son, the  two  Brownings,  Fitzgerald,  Rosseti — all  at 
their  zenith.  So  were  Dickens,  Thackeray,  Bulwer- 
Lytton,  Kingsley,  Disraeli.  The  Brontes,  Trollope, 
George  Eliot,  Swinburne,  Morris,  were  just  coming  into 
line.  Year  after  year  Ruskin  poured  out  resounding 
fugues  in  every  form  of  melodious  art.  Our  historians 
were  Carlyle,  Cirote,  Milnian,  Macaulay,  Kinglake — 
then  Froude  and  Newman.  Our  philosophers  were 
Mill,  Buckle,  Newman,  Hamilton,  Mansel.  As  I  look 
back  over  these  si.xty  years,  it  seems  to  me  as  if  English 
literature  had  been  slowly  sinking,  as  they  say  our 
eastern  counties  are  sinking,  below  the  level  of  the  sea. 
.  .  .  Railroads,  telegrams,  telej^hones,  motors,  games, 
'week  ends,'  have  made  life  one  long  scramble,  which 
wealth, luxury, and  the  'smart  world'  have  debauched 


190  The  Ciiurcii  axd  Socialism 

Jrhe  result  is  six-pciiny  maj-'azines,  four-and-six-penny 
Ouvcis,  's'.ort  stories'  in  every  half-jeniiy  rag — j)rint, 
print,  print — everywl  ere,  and  'not  a  drop  to  drink' — 
sheets  of  j)icturc  advcitisen  ei  ts,  Lut  of  literature  not 
an  ounce."  Amonp  tie  forces  responsible  for  this 
t!ecat!e;  ce  Mr.  Harrison  n  er.tions  "tie  increase  of 
material  aj)pliances,  vulpatizing  life  and  n^aking  it  a 
scramble  for  good  tilings"  (quoted  in  the  Literary 
Digest,  March  9,  1907). 

The  indefinite  pursuit  of  material  satisfaction  is,  in 
conside.able  n  easuie,  injurious  to  health.  Rich  and 
varied  food  is  irot  always  more  nourishing  and  1  ealthful 
food.  Lsi:ally  it  perverts  the  taste  and  artificially 
stinuilates  the  aj)j  elite  to  such  an  extent  as  to  j)roduce 
serious  ailmer.ts  of  the  digestive  organs.  The  in- 
ordinate and  feverish  endeavor  to  increase  income,  tl  e 
mad  race  for  social  distiirction,  and  the  unceasing  quest 
of  new  enjoyments,  new  v>ays  of  satisfying  tyrannical 
and  jaded  appetites,  is  disastrous  to  the  nervous  system. 
As  a  consequence  of  this  twofold  abuse  of  their  physical 
and  mental  faculties,  a  large  section  of  the  American 
people  are  already  confirmed  dyspeptics  or  confirmed 
neurasthenics.  The  injurious  physical  effects  of  un- 
chastity  and  intemperance  are  too  obvious  to  need 
extended  comment. 

Even  the  claim  that  a  larger  volume  of  happiness 
will  result  from  the  development  and  satisfaction  of  a 
larger  volume  of  wants  is  unfounded.  For  tire  greater 
the  number  of  warts  tlrat  1  ave  becom.e  active,  the 
greater  must  be  the  pain  or  inconvenience  suffered 


False  axd  True  Welfare  191 

while  these  wants  a-e  unsatisfied.  Tl  e  more  nr.meroiis 
the  wants  that  clajror  for  satisfaction,  tl  e  greater  is 
the  likelihood  of  disappoir.tn  ent,  tl  e  greater  is  tl  e 
care  and  worry  needed  to  meet  tl.em,  ard  tie  more 
numerous  are  tlie  instarccs  in  which  satisfaction  leads 
inevitably  to  satiety.  The  m^ore  frequent  and  the 
more  varied  the  satisfaction  accorded  to  any  want, 
the  more  must  the  stimulus  or  satisfying  object  be 
increased  in  order  to  produce  the  forn  er  measure  of 
enjojTi  ent.  In  a  sense,  v\e  are  all  slaves  to  tie  wants 
that  we  habitually  satisfy;  conseqrently,  the  greater 
the  number  of  indulged  wants,  the  greater  is  tl:e  slavery. 
Socrates  thanked  the  gods  because  they  had  given 
him  but  few  wants;  both  Ei)ic  irus  and  Diogenes 
sought  haj>[)iness  in  freedom  from  vants.  As  the 
author  of  the  "Simple  Li  e"  says:  "The  question  of  food 
and  shelter  has  never  been  sharper  or  more  absorbing 
than  since  we  are  better  nourished,  clothed,  and 
housed  than  ever.  It  is  not  the  woman  of  one  dress 
who  asks  most  insistently  how  she  shall  be  clothed. 
Hunger  has  never  driven  men  to  such  baseness  as  the 
superfluous  nee  s,  envy,  avarice,  and  the  thirst  for 
pleasure." 

Not  only  the  rich  but  the  middle  classes  experience 
increased  discontent  as  a  result  of  yielding  to  the 
"higher-standard-of-living"  fallacy.  An  effective  illus- 
tration of  this  fact  is  contained  in  an  article  by  Annie 
Webster  Noel  in  the  New  York  Independent,  October 
26,  1905.  Following  are  some  of  its  most  pertinent 
passages:  "We  married  in  New  York  City  on  twelve  a 


192  The  Church  axd  Socialism 

week.  ...  If  our  friends  would  only  be  happy  our 
great  trouble  would  be  removed.  They  do  enjoy 
staying  with  us.  It  is  t'  e  i)lunge  (into  a  cheaper  house 
and  neighborhood j  that  is  hard.  The  fact  is  that  our 
happiness,  without  so  many  of  the  things  being  striven 
for,  is  a  slap  in  the  face.  .  .  .  We  kept  house  on 
twelve  dollars  a  week  for  three  months,  on  fourteen  a 
week  for  six  months.  Then  we  had  twenty  a  week. 
We  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  twenty  a  week 
is  about  where  poverty  covimences.  Below  that  con- 
tentment is  found  in  meeting  living  exj)enses.  But 
above  that  new  wants  begin  to  take  shape.  If  one 
hasn't  a  dollar,  one  stays  at  home  and  is  content. 
But  whoever  went  out  to  buy  something  for  a  dollar 
and  did  not  .see  just  what  she  wanted  for  two.*'  .  .  . 
We  have  reached  the  critical  stage  in  our  mhxage. 
We  are  spending  a  little  more  here,  a  little  more  there. 
We  are  entertaining  a  little  more.  We  are  mixing  more 
with  peoj)le  of  larger  means.  .  ,  .  Throiigh  a  gradual  in- 
crease in  our  income  we  have  been  reduced  to  poverty." 
In  other  words,  the  increase  of  income  brought  into 
practical  consideration  new  but  purely  material 
wants,  whose  satisfaction  or  attempted  satisfaction 
not  only  did  not  make  for  improvement  of  mind  or 
character,  but  left  this  woman  and  her  husband  less 
contented  than  before. 

The  worst  effect  of  the  failure  to  find  increased  happi- 
ness in  the  increased  satisfaction  of  material  wants  is 
the  realization  of  this  fact  by  the  seekers.  The  disillu- 
sion and  disappointment  not  infrequentl}'^  make  them 


False  and  True  Welfare  193 

pessimists  in  their  view  of  life  as  a  whole.  Having 
cherished  for  such  a  long  time  a  false  conception  of 
what  constitutes  true  wortli  and  rational  living,  they 
do  not  readily  return  to  saner  views.  In  this  connec- 
tion the  work  of  Paulsen,  already  quoted,  furnishes 
some  significant  passages.  After  citing  a  document 
which  was  placed  in  the  steeple-knob  of  St.  Margaret's 
Church  at  Gotha  in  1784,  and  which  glorifies  the 
modern  age,  with  its  freedom,  its  arts,  and  its  .sciences, 
and  its  u.seful  knowledge — all  pointing  to  greater 
material  enjoyment  antl  greater  liaj)piness — the  author 
makes  this  coniment:  "When  we  compare  the  self- 
confidence  of  the  dying  eighteenth  century,  as  expressed 
in  these  lines,  with  tiie  o])inion  which  the  dying  nine- 
teenth century  has  of  itself,  we  note  a  strong  contrast. 
Instead  of  the  i)roud  consciousness  of  having  reached 
a  pinnacle,  a  feeling  that  we  are  on  the  decline;  instead 
of  joyful  pride  in  the  successes  achieved  and  joyful 
hope  of  new  and  greater  things,  a  feeling  of  disai)point- 
ment  and  weariness,  and  a  premonition  of  a  coming 
catastroi)he;  .  .  .  but  one  fundamental  note  running 
through  the  awful  confusion  of  voices:  pe.ssimi.vn! 
Indignation  and  disai)i)ointment;  these  seem  to  be  the 
two  strings  to  which  the  eniotional  life  of  the  y)resent 
is  attuned.  .  .  .  What  Rousseau  hurled  into  the  face 
of  his  times  as  an  unheard-of  paradox,  namely,  that 
culture  and  civilization  do  not  make  men  better  and 
happier,  Schopenhauer  teaches  as  a  philosophical 
theorem:  Civilization  increases  our  misery,  civilization 
is  the  one  great  favx  pas"  ("A  System  of  Ethics," 
pp.  U7,  148). 


194  The  CnuRcn  and  Socialism 

This  doleful  picture  is  truer  of  Europe  tlian  of 
America.  We  iiave  not  ^et  adojtcd  tl  e  pliilosojjliy  of 
Sclioj)etiliauer.  \A'c  are  younger  tl  an  tl  e  European 
peoples,  and  liave  less  experience;  consequently,  we 
have  more  enthusiasm,  more  illusions,  more  hope, 
more  faith  in  ourselves  and  in  the  satisfying  qualities 
of  the  material  riches  that  we  will  secure  from  a  land 
lavishly  endowed  hy  nature.  And  yet  the  rai)idly 
increasing  nimiber  of  persons  among  us  whose  creed  is 
pessimism,  indicates  that  with  the  coming  of  more 
years,  more  exi)erience,  and  more  mature  knowledge, 
we  too  shall  he  of  the  opinion  that  "culture" — so- 
called — "and  civilization" — so  called — "do  not  make 
men  better  and  happier." 

It  is  sometimes  asserted  that  the  indefinite  j)ursuit 
of  material  goods  is  ncccs.«ary  for  the  sake  of  beauty 
and  refinement.  Indoubtedly  these  have  a  legitimate 
place  in  any  comi)lcte  theory  of  right  living,  but  their 
imi)ortance  is  only  secondary.  They  ought  not  to  be 
sought  or  obtained  to  the  detriment  of  the  primary 
goods  of  life,  such  as  health,  mentality,  virility,  good 
morals,  contentment.  Besides,  much  of  the  so-called 
refinement,  that  is  so  much  prized  and  sought,  is  not 
genuine.  It  is  largely  imitation,  effeminacy,  artifice, 
vulgarity.  True  refinement  includes  not  merely  ele- 
gance, polish,  and  delicac}' — which  often  appear  in 
very  artificial  forms — but  purity  of  mind,  feelings,  and 
tastes.  In  the  endeavor  to  satisfy  minutely  one's 
material  wants,  the  latter  qualities  aie  often  %Aeakened 
instead  of  being  develoi)ed.  The  search  for  beauty 
and  magnificence  also  leads  frequently  to  grave  per- 


False  and  True  Welfare  195 

versions.  Professor  Veblen  maintains  that  the  ex- 
penditures of  the  riclier  classes  in  America  are  governed 
by  "the  principle  of  conspicuous  waste."  This 
means  that  a  man  or  a  woman — especially  the  latter — 
must  strive  in  the  nuittcr  of  dress,  entertainment,  and 
equipage,  to  show  that  he  or  she  is  able  to  conmiand 
the  most  costly  articles  that  money  can  buy,  and  then 
must  treat  them  with  such  recklessness  as  to  indicate 
that  they  could  be  immediately  replaced.  And  Mrs. 
Charlotte  Perkins  Stetson  tells  us  in  The  Home  that, 
"woman  puts  upon  her  body,  without  criticism  or 
objection,  every  excess,  distortion,  discord,  and  con- 
tradiction that  can  be  sewed  together.  .  .  .  The 
esthetic  sense  of  woman  has  never  interfered  with 
her  acceptance  of  ugliness  if  ugliness  were  the  fashion." 
This  superficial  survey  of  a  field  that  is  so  broad  as  to 
demand  a  volume  for  adequate  treatment,  and  .so 
difficult  as  to  be  nearly  incapable  of  definite  descrip- 
tion, no  doubt  appears  fragmentary,  vague,  and 
possibly  exaggerated.  Nevertheless,  the  hope  is  enter- 
tained that  two  or  three  points  have  been  made  more 
or  less  clear.  First,  that  the  theory  of  values  and  of 
life  which  impels  men  to  multiply  and  vary  and  develop 
and  satisfy  indefinitely  those  wants  that  are  grouped 
under  the  heads  of  shelter,  food,  clothing,  social 
intercourse,  and  amusem.ent,  is  false,  and  makes  as  a 
rule  for  physical,  n  ental,  and  moral  decadence.  To 
those  persons — and  tlieir  number  is  legion — who 
exi)licitly  or  implicitly  adopt  and  pursue  this  material- 
istic   ideal,  money  is  literally  "everything."     Money 


196  The  Church  and  Socialism 

does,  indeed,  "enslave"  tliem.  And  it  is  difficult  to 
say  wliicli  class  receives  the  greater  hurt — those  who 
succeed  to  a  considerable  <lej;ree  in  realizing  their 
aim,  or  those  who  utterly  fail.  Although  the  latter 
do  not  attain  to  that  excessive  satisfaction  of  material 
wants  which  is  demoralizing,  their  incessant  striving  for 
it  prevents  them  from  adf)j)ting  reasonahle  views  of  life, 
and  their  failure  leaves  tliem  discontented  and  pessi- 
nu'stic.  In  the  second  place,  ninety-nine  out  of  every 
hundred  j)ersons  are  morally  certain  to  lead  healthier, 
cleaner,  nohler,  more  intellectual,  and  more  useful 
lives  if  they  neither  pass  nor  attempt  to  pass  l)eyond  the 
line  of  moderate  comfort  in  the  matter  of  material 
satisfactions.  Lest  this  statement  he  accounted  too 
vague,  let  us  hazard  the  assertion  that  the  n)ajoril.\  of 
families  that  expend  more  than  J^IO.OOO  per  year  for  the 
malcriul  yoods  of  life  would  he  hctter  off  in  mind  and 
character  if  they  had  kept  helow  that  figure.  Because 
of  this  general  fact,  reflecting  and  discriminating  f»er- 
sons  have  hut  scant  sympathy  with  the  amiiitions  of 
the  mass  of  comfortably  situated  country  people  who 
come  to  the  city  to  "better  their  position,"  or  with  the 
desire  of  the  highest  j)aid  sections  of  the  laboring  classes 
to  increase  their  remuneration.  Today,  as  of  old,  the 
prayer  of  the  Wise  ^lan  rej)rescnts  the  highest  practical 
wisdom:  "Give  me  neither  poverty  nor  riches;  give 
me  only  the  necessaries  of  life."  In  this  connection 
the  hope  may  be  expressed  that  the  foregoing  pages 
will  have  shown  the  "indefinite-satisfaction-of-indefi- 
nite-wants"  theory  to  be  directly  at  variance  with  the 


False  asd  True  Welfare  107 

Christian  conception  of  wealth  and  of  life.  Even  the 
majority  of  Catholics  seem  to  hold  to  the  Christian 
<-onception  only  theoretically  and  vaijiiely,  not  clearly 
and  practically.  In  a  .subsequent  paper  an  attempt 
will  he  made  to  aj)i)Iy  this  concef)tion  to  the  actual  life 
of  today,  and  to  indicate  more  precisely  the  content  of 
a  rea.sonable  standard  of  life.' 

II 

We  si)eak  much  about  the  duty  of  avoiding  excessive 
attachment  to  and  misu.se  of  wealth,  but  our  utterances 
are  mostly  of  the  nature  of  platitudes,  ^^'e  tio  not 
often  think  into  them  any  concrete  meaning  as  to 
what  i>recisely  constitutes  excessive  attachment  or 
misuse  in  the  nuitter  of  f()o<l,  clothing,  houses,  anuise- 
ments,  and  "social  "  activities.  Or,  wiien  our  concei)ts 
are  more  specific,  they  are  generally  so  liberal  and  lax 
as  to  fit  oidy  the  very  few  whose  ofTences  under  these 
heads  are  striking,  notorious,  and  universally  con- 
<lemne<l.  .Vs  a  contribution  toward  more  definite 
views  and  estimates,  the  present  i)ai)er  will  attem{jt 
"to  ajiply  the  Christian  conception  to  tiie  actual 
life  of  today  and  to  indicate  more  precisely  the  content 
of  a  reasonable  standard  of  life." 


•  In  order  to  make  more  concnte  the  ar;:u merit  set  forth 
above,  let  us  sugpest  that  if  the  most  costly  one-fourth  of  the 
bouses  in  any  large  city  were  to  disappear,  to  be  replaced  by 
dweHinu's  costing  on  the  average  one-third  as  much,  and  if  the 
general  standard  of  li\ini:  of  the  occupants  were  reduced  accord- 
ingly, practically  all  of  them  would  be  Letter  oflF.  and  their 
example  of  sane  living  would  have  a  very  beneficial  effect  on 
the  rest  of  the  community. 


198  The  Church  and  Socialism 

According  to  tie  Christian  teaching,  man's  chief 
business  on  earth  is  to  fit  h.iir.self  for  tl  e  Life  Beyond. 
This  task  he  fulfils  liy  living  up  to  tl  e  con  mardn'ents 
of  (-hrist  and  the  moral  law  of  nature.  As  a]  plying 
to  the  use  of  material  goods  and  the  satisfaction  of 
material  wants,  the  moral  law  n^ay  he  summarized  in 
the  following  sentences.  The  soul,  its  life,  and  its 
needs  are  intrinsicallj'  superior  to  the  life  and  needs  of 
the  l)o<ly.  The  intcllort  and  the  disinterested  will  are 
essentially  higher  faculties  than  the  sen.ses  and  the 
.selfish  will.  Hence  right  human  life  consists,  not  in 
the  indefinite  satisfaction  of  niaterial  wants,  but  in 
striving  to  know  more  and  more,  and  to  love  more 
and  more,  the  best  that  is  to  be  known  and  loved, 
namol',  God  and,  in  pro})ortion  to  tlieir  resemblance 
to  Hi)  ,  His  creatures.  It  demands  that  man  shall 
sati.sfy  the  cravings  of  his  animal  and  lower  nature 
only  to  the  extent  that  is  compatible  with  a  reasonable 
attention  to  the  things  of  the  mind  and  spirit.  The 
senses  and  their  demands  are  not  on  the  same  moral 
level  as  the  reason;  they  are  of  subordinate  worth  and 
importance;  they  perform  tlie  function  of  instruments. 
Whenever  they  are  made  coordinate  with,  or  superior 
to,  the  reason,  whenever  they  are  indulged  so  far  as 
to  interfere  with  the  normal  life  and  activity  of  the 
reason,  there  occur  moral  disorder,  perversion  of 
function,  and  unrighteous  conduct.  Similarly,  when- 
ever the  selfish  encroaches  upon  the  disinterested  will 
— as  when  we  satisfy  our  senses  with  goods  that  ought 
to  go  to  the  neighbor,  when  we  indulge  such  passions 
as  envy  and  hatred,  or  when  we  expend  upon  our 


False  axd  True  Welfare  199 

minds  tbe  time  and  energy  that  ought  to  be  given  to 
family,  neighbor,  or  country — the  moral  order  is 
inverted  and  vio'ated. 

Thus  far  tl  e  moral  law  of  reason  and  nature.  The 
supernatural,  tl  e  Christian,  moral  law  is  frankly 
ascetic;  not  in  tl  e  serse  tl  at  it  imjjoscs  upon  all  persons 
the  Evangelical  Counsels  of  poverty,  chastity,  and 
obedience,  but  inasmuch  as  it  requires  men  to  wage  a 
continuous  struggle  against  many  of  the  cravings  of 
appetite,  and  to  deny  many  desires  and  ambitions  which 
are  dear  to  self.  Unless  the  child  subordinate  his 
will  to  that  of  his  parents,  his  love  of  play  to  the 
demands  of  school,  his  desire  of  possession  to  reasonable 
self-discipline,  his  selfishness  and  cruelty  to  the  just 
claims  of  his  playmates,  he  will  grow  into  a  self-willed, 
passionate,  and  unlovable  youth.  He  will  be  the 
antithesis  of  the  Christian  tj'pe.  The  Christian  young 
man  or  young  woman  enters  into  a  series  of  relations 
in  which  the  need  of  self-denial  is  intensified  and 
widened.  Purity  demands  rigid  control  of  the  desires 
of  the  flesh;  temi)crance  requires  careful  self-restraint 
in  eating  and  drinking;  justice  enjoins  respect  for  the 
rights  and  goods  of  others,  notwithstanding  the  power- 
ful, manifold,  and  insidious  impulses  that  make  for  the 
violation  of  this  precept;  the  law  of  labor  forbids  in- 
dulging the  tende:.cy  to  idleness  and  slothfulness; 
charity  commands  the  denial  of  that  self-satisfaction, 
self-comfort,  and  self-assertion  which  are  incomj>atible 
with  the  claims  of  Christian  brotherhood.  Chris- 
tianity is  ascetic  in  the  stricter  sense  of  the  term  when 


200  The  Ciilrcii  and  Socialism 

it  urges,  nay,  requires  men  to  do  without  many  things 
which  are  in  themselves  lawful,  in  order  that  they  may 
be  the  better  able  to  pass  by  the  things  that  are  un- 
lawful. The  words  of  St.  Paul  concerning  the  athlete 
who  "refrains  himself  from  all  tilings"  express  the  true 
Christian  theory  and  practice. 

Both  the  natural  and  the  Christian  laws  of  conduct 
are,  conscciueiitly.  ojjposed  to  the  current  ideals  of 
life  and  welfare.  lioth  demand  that  llie  power  t(vdo 
without  shall  be  cultivated  to  such  a  degree  that  the 
lower  nature  in  man  shall  be  kci)t  in  constant  subjec- 
tion to  the  higher.  Hoth  deny  that  it  is  lawful  for 
num  to  satisfy  all  wants  indinVrciitly  or  to  .seek  the 
indefinite  exj)ansi()n  and  satisfaction  of  his  material 
wants. 

Concerning  the  value  of  material  goods,  the  teaching 
of  the  Divine  Founder  of  Christianity  is  clear  and 
forcible.  Consider  a  few  of  his  pronouncements: 
"It  is  easier  for  a  camel  to  pass  through  the  eye  of  a 
needle  than  for  a  rich  man  to  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven."  "Woe  to  you  rich."  "Blessed  are  you 
poor."  "Lay  not  up  for  yourselves  treasures  on 
earth."  "For  a  man's  life  consisteth  not  in  the 
abundance  of  things  that  he  possesseth."  "Be  not 
solicitous  as  to  what  you  shall  eat,  or  what  j'ou  shall 
drink,  or  what  you  shall  put  on."  "Seek  ye  first  the 
kingdom  of  God  and  his  justice,  and  all  these  things 
shall  be  added  unto  you."  "You  cannot  serve  God 
and  Mammon."  "If  thou  wouldst  be  perfect,  go  sell 
what  thou  hast  and  give  to  the  poor,  and  come  follow 


False  and  True  Welfare  201 

me."  The  doctrine  of  these  texts  is  remote,  indeed, 
from  the  theory  that  rijjht  life  consists  in  the  ever- 
widening  and  varying  of  material  wants,  and  the 
ever  fuller  and  more  diversified  satisfaction  of  them. 
In  many  places,  and  under  many  different  forms, 
Christ  insists  that  material  possessions  are  unimportant 
for  the  child  of  God,  and  that  those  who  have  much 
wealth  will  find  it  almost  impossible  to  get  into  his 
kingdom. 

The  great  Fathers  of  the  Church  used  strong,  almost 
extreme  language  in  describing  the  dangers  of  riches 
and  denouncing  the  men  of  wealth  of  their  time. 
Many  of  them  are  so  severe  that  they  have  been, 
incorrectly  however,  classified  as  socialists.  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  declared  that  although  nran  cannot  entirely 
disregard  the  pursuit  and  the  possession  of  external 
goods,  he  ought  to  seek  them  with  moderation,  and  in 
conformity  with  the  demands  of  a  simple  life.  Es- 
sentially the  same  views  have  been  held  and  taught  by 
all  the  representative  authorities  of  the  Church  through- 
out the  Middle  Ages  and  down  to  the  present  hour. 
Neither  Christ  nor  His  Church  has  ever  sanctioned  the 
theory  that  right  and  reasonable  life  requires  mag- 
nificent houses,  furnishings,  equipage,  and  entertain- 
ment, sumptuous  food  and  splendid  apparel,  costly 
recreation  and  luxurious  amusements. 

Let  us  apply  these  general  truths  and  principles  to  the 
use  of  material  goods  and  the  process  of  satisfying 
material  wants,  with  a  view  to  more  definite  and 
particular  conclusions.     To  begin  with,  we  can  enclose 


202  The  Church  and  Sociausm 

the  field  of  material  welfare  by  certain  upper  and  lower 
limits,  within  which  ninety-nine  of  every  hundred 
persons  must  have  a  place  if  they  are  to  enjoy  satis- 
factory conditions  of  Christian  living.  It  would  seem 
that  these  conditions  are  lacking  whenever  an  average- 
sized  family  in  one  of  the  larger  American  cities  re- 
ceives an  annual  income  of  less  than  $1,;">0().  When 
the  family  income  falls  below  that  amount  j)er  year, 
the  ciuality  and  ;inK)unt  of  food;  tl'C  si/e,  apj>carance, 
adornment,  and  o(iuij)mcnt  of  the  home;  the  kijid  of 
clothes;  the  scant  j)rovision  for  sickness,  accidents,  and 
old  age;  the  lack  of  sufficient  means  for  recreation, 
books,  newspapers,  charity,  and  religion;  and  the 
oppressively  real  fear  of  want,  will  subject  the  members 
of  the  family  to  severe  temptations  that  would  be  un- 
felt,  or  nmch  less  keenly  felt,  if  the  income  were  above 
the  figure  named.  Insufhcient  and  monotonous  food 
increases  the  craving  for  strong  drink;  shabby  clothes 
make  persons  ashamed  to  appear  among  their  fellows, 
and  lead  to  loss  of  self-respect,  discouragement,  and 
discontent;  an  unattractive  home  produces  similar 
results  and  impels  some  members  of  the  family  to  seek 
outside  associations,  perha{)s  in  the  saloon;  lack  of 
provision  for  the  untoward  contingencies  of  life  fosters 
discouragement  and  discontent  which  are  harmful  to 
thrift  and  industry,  and  j)roductive  of  irreligion  and 
envy  of  the  neighbor;  inability  to  contribute  to  religion 
causes  men  to  remain  away  from  church,  while  the 
absence  of  reading  matter  leaves  the  mind  barren;  in- 
sufficiency of  recreation  is  injurious  to  health,  efficiency, 


False  and  True  Welfare  203 

and  contentment.  All  these  evils  are,  indeed,  relative. 
They  are  felt  by  families  above  as  well  as  by  those 
below  the  $1,.500  limit.  Nevertheless,  they  inflict  se- 
rious, objective  injury  upon  one  hundred  of  the  latter 
to  one  of  the  former. 

How  shall  we  define  the  upper  limit  of  family  ex- 
penditure that  is  compatible  with  decent  Christian 
living?  The  question  may  at  first  sight  seem  prepos- 
terous, ina-much  as  reasonable  life  is  possible  at  many 
different  stages  above  the  decent  minimum.  Yet  if 
the  Christian  view  of  life  is  correct,  the  maximum 
as  well  as  the  minimum  ought  to  be  susceptible  of 
concrete  statement.  If  expenditures  for  material 
goods  begin  to  be  harnifid  as  soon  as  the  limits  of 
moderation  are  passed  and  the  satisfaction  of  the  senses 
comes  into  conflict  with  the  life  of  the  spirit,  those 
limits  ought  to  be  capable  of  definition  in  terms  of 
goods  and  of  money.  To  deny  this  is  implicitly  to 
defend  the  theory  that  right  life  consists  in  the  in- 
definite satisfa  tion  of  indefinitely  exf)an  ling  wants. 

In  the  matter  of  shelter  the  maximum  for  an  average- 
sized  family — husband  and  wife  and  four  or  five 
children — would  seem  to  be  a  house  of  about  twelve 
rooms.  Obviously  the  mere  fact  that  the  residence 
contains  a  larger  number  of  rooms  does  not  constitute 
a  serious  impediment  to  reasonable  living.  Not  the 
quantity  of  housing,  but  its  accidentals  and  accessories, 
is  the  important  consideration.  Not  the  rooms  in 
excess  of  twelve,  but  what  they  generally  bring  in  their 
train,  makes  the  difference..     When  the  limit  here  set 


204  The  Church  and  Socialism 

down  is  passed,  it  is  not  additional  comfort  in  the 
legitimate  sense  of  tliat  term  tl.at  is  desired,  but  rather 
accommodations  for  numerous  servants,  facilities  for 
elaborate  social  functions,  and  the  consciousness  of 
occupying  as  iar^'e  or  as  imposing  a  dwelling  as  some 
neighbor  or  neighbors.  Such  a  house  will  usually 
involve  adornment,  furnishings,  aiul  equipment  which 
will  be  distinguished  more  for  costliness,  richness,  and 
magnificence  than  simply  for  beauty. 

All  these  and  many  other  ends,  which  assume  j)romin- 
ence  about  the  time  tliat  the  twelve-room  limit  is 
exceeded,  do  create  real  and  serious  hindrances  to 
decent  Christian  living.  Chief  among  these  hindrances 
are:  a  great  waste  of  time,  energj',  thought,  and  money; 
many  other  demoralizing  conditions  that  seem  to  be 
in.separable  from  sumptuous  dwellings  and  the  in- 
diviilual  and  social  life  therein  fostered;  the  inevitable 
intensification  of  the  passion  of  envy;  the  desire  to 
outdo  one's  neighbors  in  the  sj)lendor  of  material 
possessions  and  in  outward  show  generally;  a  diminu- 
tion of  sincerity  in  social  relations;  a  lessened  con- 
sciousness of  the  reality  and  the  universality  of  Chris- 
tian broth.erhood;  and,  finally,  immersion  to  such  a 
degree  in  tlie  things  of  matter  that  th.e  higher  realities 
of  life  are  easily  forgotten  or  ignored. 

Satisfaction  of  the  foo  1  want  becomes  excessive 
when  the  appetite  is  stimulated  or  pampered  to  the 
injury  of  health,  and  when  victuals  come  to  be  prized 
for  their  capacity  to  please  the  palate  rather  than  for 
their  power  to  nourish.     These  conditions  are  reached 


False  axd  True  Welfare  20.1 

sooner  than  most  persons  realize.  IlaVjitually  to 
pass  by  plain  food,  and  to  seek  the  tenderest  and  most 
delicate  grades,  implies  a  condition  in  which  the 
digestive  organs  are  being  overtaxed.  ]Mere  variety 
in  the  articles  of  diet,  when  extended  beyond  moderate 
bounds,  produces  the  same  result.  A  liberal  use  of 
the  accidentals,  such  as  condiments,  relishes,  exquisite 
desserts,  is  likewise  harmful.  Even  a  nice  attention  to 
the  preparation  and  serving  of  the  food  easily  i)roduces 
undue  and  injurious  stimulation  of  the  appetite.  The.se 
physical  excesses,  or  extravagances,  are  generally 
accompanied  by  evils  of  the  moral  order.  The  pleasure- 
giving  aspects  of  diet  and  of  eating  become  too  promi- 
nent and  are  too  carefully  sought.  There  is  an  ex- 
cessive attention  to  the  satisfaction  of  the  food  Axant 
which  constitutes  one  form  of  the  vice  of  gluttony. 
From  it  follows  a  lessening  of  control  over  other  ap- 
petites; for  the  power  of  governing  the  .senses  is  a 
unified  thing  which  becomes  weakened  as  a  whole 
whenever  it  sufl'ers  injury  in  any  i)art.  Failure  to 
control  the  food  appetite,  for  example,  reduces  the 
ability  to  govern  the  sex  appetite.  Finally,  the  limits 
of  reason  are  exceeded  when  the  accessories  of  eating, 
as  the  service,  the  dishes,  the  dining-room  furniture, 
are  distinguished  chiefly  for  their  costliness,  richness, 
and  magnificence. 

With  regard  to  clothing,  there  is  excess  as  .soon  as  the 
desire  to  be  dressed  comfortably  and  decently  becomes 
less  prominent  than  the  desire  for  conspicuousness, 
richness,   elaborateness,   splendor.     All    these   are   re- 


206  The  Church  and  Socialism 

finemeiits,  artificial  complications,  of  tlie  process  of 
satisfying  the  clothing  want.  When  tliey  come  to  be 
re^Milarly  sought  after,  they  cause  a  ^aste  of  money 
and  a  deterioration  of  character.  Tliere  is  waste  of 
money,  inasmucli  as  these  ends  are  relatively — indeed, 
we  niif,'ht  say,  ahsohitely — of  no  importance  to  reason- 
able living.  The  character  sufTers  through  the  indul- 
gence of  the  passion  for  distinction  in  mere  possessions 
and  the  passions  of  pride,  vanity,  and  envy.  It  is 
obviously  imj)()ssible  to  draw  with  precision  the  line 
which  separates  comfort,  decency,  and  simple  beauty 
from  consi)icuousness,  richness,  elaborateness,  splendor; 
but  the  several  estimates  of  a  carefully  .sclectc<l  com- 
mittee would  probalily  show  a  fairly  dose  agreement. 
The  tests  of  simplicity,  moderation,  and  comjiarative 
incxpensivencss  mark  off  the  reasonable  from  the 
inneasorial»le  in  the  matter  of  amusement  and  recrea- 
tion. When  these  conditions  are  i)resent  all  the 
legitimate  demands  of  these  wants  are  abunilantly 
sui)plied.  The  spirits  are  refreshed,  the  energies  are 
relaxed,  the  faculties  are  recreated.  When  these 
boimds  are  exceeded,  when  amusements  and  recrea- 
tion become  elaborate,  manifold,  and  costly,  or  when 
they  are  elevated  to  a  place  among  the  important  aims 
of  life,  there  occurs  a  perversion  which  is  injurious  both 
physically  and  morally.  Time  and  money  are  wasted, 
energy  is  expended  in  the  feverish  pursuit  of  new  forms 
of  amusement,  satiety  and  disappointment  increase, 
and  the  temptations  to  unrighteous  conduct  are 
multiplied.     Even   the  practice   of  making  extensive 


False  and  True  Welfare  207 

and  frequent  sojourns  in  foreign  countries,  while 
possessing  some  educational  advantages,  consumes 
time  and  money  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  resulting 
benefits.  In  many  cases  its  chief  effect  is  to  satisfy 
jaded  curiosity,  fill  up  hea\y-hanging  time,  or  feed  the 
passions  of  vanity  and  conscious  superiority. 

The  activities  that  are  denominated  "social"  afford 
perhaps  the  most  striking  indication  of  the  distinction 
between  th.e  reasonable  and  the  meretricious  in  the 
satisfaction  of  material  wants.  There  is  a  certain 
moderate  scale  of  social  activity  and  entertainment  in 
which  the  exercises,  the  dress,  the  refreshments,  and 
all  the  other  accessories,  are  distinguished  by  a  certain 
naturalness  and  simi)licity.  Where  these  conditions 
(which  are  more  easily  recognized  than  described) 
are  verified,  the  usual  result  is  a  maximum  of  enjoy- 
ment and  right  human  feeling.  When  these  limits  are 
passed;  when  the  chief  concern  is  about  the  accessories 
of  the  entertainment  rather  than  the  i)romotion  of 
kindly  human  intercourse  and  enjoyment;  when  the 
main  object  is  to  emulate  the  elaborateness,  costliness, 
or  magnificence  of  some  other  "function" — genuine 
enjoyment  and  kindly  feeling  are  generally  less  than 
in  the  simpler  conditions,  while  the  damage  to  purse, 
health,  nerves,  and  character  is  almost  invariably 
greater. 

The  foregoing  paragraphs  may  be  concretely  stmi- 
marized  in  the  statement  that  the  annual  expenditure 
for  material  goods  in  the  case  of  the  overwhelming  ma- 
jority of  moderately  sized  families,  ought  not  to  exceed 


208  The  Church  and  Socialism 

$10,000.  Probal)ly  tlic  ran^'c  of  expenditure  wliicb 
would  afford  the  best  condilions  of  Christian  life  for 
a  coiisideraMo  majority  of  all  American  families  lies 
Ix'twceii  $;5.00()  and  $.i.00()  per  annum. 

The  attem|)t  to  state  so  precisely  and  to  define  so 
narrowly  the  cost  of  livinti  according;  to  the  Christian 
rule  of  life  will  probably  strike  many  as  presumj)tuous, 
preposterous,  artificial,  arbitrary.  Nevertheless,  if 
one  is  sincere,  if  one  wishes  to  write  to  any  serious 
purpose,  if  one  intends  to  f;et  beyond  empty  platitudes, 
one  must  make  .some  such  attempt  and  in  some  such 
terms.  And  the  writer  is  perfectly  willing  to  have  his 
estimate  subjected  to  criticism,  to  criticism  as  definite 
and  concrete  as  the  estimate  itself.  He  is  quite  con- 
fi<lent  that,  with  very  rare  exceptions,  $10,000  will 
scvnx  ample  to  cover  all  reasonable  family  ex- 
penditures for  juaterial  goo<ls.  When  families  go  l>e- 
yond  this  figure  they  are  satisfying  wants  which  in 
the  interests  of  the  best  Christian  life  ought  to  be 
denie<l.  In  so  far  as  the  adde<i  amount  is  spent  on  a 
house,  its  principal  effect  is  to  increa.se  not  legitimate 
comfort,  but  pritle,  vanity,  waste  of  time,  and  unso- 
cial feelings  of  superiority.  In  .so  far  as  it  is  exi)ended 
for  dress  it  produces  the  same  results,  and  makes 
persons  unduly  attendant  to  and  dej)endent  upon 
wants  that  are  unnecessary,  artificial,  and  fundamen- 
ally  ignoble.  In  so  far  as  it  goes  for  food,  it  does  not 
mean  more  nourishment,  but  some  injury  to  health  and 
an  undue  attachment  to  the  lower  or  animal  self.  In 
so   far   as   it    is  exchanged    for    amusements,    recrea- 


False  and  True  Welfare  209 

tion,  or  social  activities,  the  same  and  other  vices  are 
fostered  without  any  counterbalancing  good  result. 
^Where  the  family  expends  more  than  $10000  for 
material  goods,  the  results,  except  in  a  few  cases, 
will  be  harmful  to  Christian  life,  inasmuch  as  the 
senses  will  l)e  exalted  to  the  detriment  of  the  higher 
will  and  thr;  reason,  the  altruistic  qualities  will  be  un- 
ble  to  obtain  reasonable  development  in  the  midst 
of  so  many  influences  making  for  selfishness,  and  the 
character  will  grow  soft,  while  the  power  to  do  with- 
out will  grow  v.cak. 

The  belief  that  men  can  live  noble,  religious,  and 
intellectual  lives  in  the  presence  of  abundant  material 
satisfaction,  is  well  called  by  tlie  economist,  Charles 
Perin,  "the  most  terrible  seduction  of  our  time."  It 
counts  among  its  adherents  even  the  majority  of 
Catholics.  Whether  they  have  little  or  much  of  this 
satisfaction,  they  long  for  more,  and  are  willing  to 
run  the  risk  of  the  resulting  demoralization.  Nay, 
there  are  Catholics,  both  clerical  and  lay,  who  realize 
that  the  majority  of  their  co-religionists  whose  ex- 
penditures are  above  the  level  described  in  these  pages 
would  be  "better  off"  in  the  true,  the  Catholic,  sense 
of  these  words,  below  that  level;  yet  these  same  Catho- 
lics rejoice  when  their  friends  reach  that  scale  of  ex- 
penditure. So  great  is  the  power  of  a  dominant 
popular  fallacy! 

Perhaps  the  strongest  objection  against  the  maximum 
set  down  here  will  be  made  on  behalf  of  "social  posi- 
tion."    Larger,    much    larger    expenditures    seem    to 


210  The  Church  and  Socialism 

many  persons  to  he  justified  and  necessary  in  order  to 
maintain  that  rank  in  society,  that  place  among  their 
feUows,  that  standard  of  living  to  which  they  have 
hecome  accustomed.  To  sink  heloAv  this  scale  wouM 
he  a  hardship  and  a  departure  from  w  hat  tliey  and  their 
friends  have  come  to  regard  as  decent  living.  Now 
the  requirements  of  social  rank  are  among  the  legiti- 
mate needs  tliat  ought  to  he  regularly  met,  for,  as  St. 
Thomas  expre.s.ses  it,  "no  one  ought  to  live  unhecom- 
inuly."  In  their  discussions  concerning  the  duties  of 
almsgiving  and  of  restitution,  the  theologians  have 
always  made  definite  an<l  liheral  allow ance  for  this  class 
of  nee<ls.  Let  us  remcmher,  however,  that  their 
estimates  and  conclusions  reflect  the  social  conditions 
of  the  Middle  Ages,  when  the  higher  conveniences  and 
the  luxuries  which  ahsorh  tl.e  greater  part  of  tl.e  ex- 
j)enditures  of  the  well-to-do  clas.ses  today  were  prac- 
tically all  unknown;  when  most  of  the  exceptional 
outlay  was  for  servants,  attendance,  and  the  other 
accompaniments  of  j)uhlic  jjower;  and  when  high 
social  ratd<  had  its  hasis  le.ss  in  wealth  than  in  puhlic 
or  quasi-public  authority  and  functions.  Reference 
was  for  the  most  part  to  rulers,  memhers  of  the  nobility, 
and  public  officials.  Large  concessions  were  made  to 
their  demands  on  behalf  of  social  position,  in  order  to 
safe-guard  their  functions  and  influence  among  the 
people.  In  other  words,  the  chief  reason  was  a  social 
one;  the  people  demanded  a  certain  magnificence  in 
the  lives  of  their  rulers  and  of  the  other  wielders  of 
social  authority. 


False  and  True  Welfare  211 

No  such  considerations  can  be  urged  in  favor  of  the 
rich  in  a  country  like  ours.  Neither  popular  welfare, 
nor  poi)uIar  sentiment,  nor  any  sane  interj)retation  of 
decent  or  becoming  living  will  justify  expenditures  in 
excess  of  $10,000  j)cr  year.  If  any  serious  defense  of 
them  is  to  be  attemj)ted,  it  nnist  be  based  u[)on  the 
assumption  that  any  reduction  of  them  would  injure 
the  morals  or  the  self-respect  of  persons  who  had  long 
been  accustomed  to  this  scale  of  living.  That  any 
permanent  deterioration  in  conduct  or  character  would 
overtake  any  considerable  fraction  of  those  who  would 
descend  to  the  .$10,()()()  level,  is  a  supposition  that  maybe 
summarily  dismis.sed.  It  is  overwhelmingly  probable 
that  after  a  short  time  of  a 'justment  to  the  new  con- 
ditions, the  "descenders,"  with  rare  exceptions,  would 
be  stronger  morally  than  before.  The  hj7>othetical 
injury  to  seif-res})ect  does  not  deserve  serious  considera- 
tion, inasmuch  as  it  refers  to  a  false  self-respect,  a  fear 
of  being  looked  down  upon  by  those  who  liave  false 
standards  of  worth,  dignity,  and  decency.  The  self- 
respect  which  is  based  upon  the  extravagant  satis- 
faction of  material  wants,  and  conditioned  by  the 
approval  of  those  who  believe  in  that  sort  of  thing, 
ought  to  be  trampled  upon  and  eradicated. 

Suppose  that  Mr.  Carnegie,  who  has  declared  that 
the  duty  of  the  man  of  wealth  is  "to  set  an  example  of 
modest  unostentatious  living,  shunning  display  or 
extravagance,"  were  to  take  these  words  seriously, 
interj)reting  them  according  to  their  ordinary  accep- 
tation, and  to  move  from  his  sumptuous  Fifth  Avenue 


•■'I'i  The  Ciilhcii  a.vd  Sociaf.is.m 

mansion  into  a  comfortable,  metlinm-sizctl  houjic  in  a 
respectahle,  middle-class  neiglil)orhoo<l,  there  to  live 
on  a  scale  of  simple  and  moderate  comfort.  Does 
anyone  think  that  he  would  sulfer  any  real  loss  of  self- 
respect,  lienor,  reputation,  jiuhlic  appreciation,  or 
influence  for  ^'oo<l?  On  the  contrary,  he  would  ^'ain 
in  all  these  rej,'ards.  Not  the  least  of  his  piins  would 
be  his  eidiance<l  credit  for  seriousness  and  sincerity. 
And  his  experience  would  be  duplicated  by  every  rich 
man  and  rich  woman  who  wouhl  make  the  experiment. 

Those  who  would  take  this  stej)  would  be  better  off, 
not  only  in  character  and  public  esteem,  but  even  as 
regards  contentment  and  hai>pine.ss.  At  least,  this 
would  be  the  result  if  practically  all  who  are  now 
above  the  $10,000  level  were  to  place  themselves  below 
it;  for  the  principal  factor  impelling  men  to  believe  in 
the  worth  of  luxurious  living',  namely,  the  .social 
worshij)  (»f  luxury,  would  have  di.sappeared.  It  is 
the  popular  faith  in  the  happiness-i)roducin^  power  of 
abuiulant  nuitcrial  satisfaction  that  leads  the  possessor 
of  such  satisfaction  to  cling  to  it.  In  reality  it  causes 
a  greater  slavery  of  the  mind  to  the  senses,  and  in- 
creases anxiety,  worry,  and  satiety.  "In  proj)ortion 
as  a  man  strives  to  exalt  and  secure  himself  through 
external  goods,  he  falls  back  wretchedly  upon  himself, 
and  experiences  an  increase  of  dissatisfaction  and 
ennui''  (Perin,  "De  la  Richesse,"  p.  11). 

If  only  a  few  were  to  make  the  experiment,  they 
would  undoubtedly  sufTer  considerable  mental  anguish, 
but  it  would  be  only  temporary.     Besides,  it  would  be 


False  and  True  Welfare  213 

more  than  offset  by  the  increase  of  mental  and  moral 
freedom,  by  a  deeper  and  truer  self-respect,  and  by  the 
Pennine  approval  of  the  larger  and  saner  part  of  the 
connuunity. 

The  foregoing  discussion  may  be  profitably  supple- 
mented by  a  \vor<l  on  the  social  aspects  of  excessive 
living  expenditures.  Beyond  doubt,  a  scale  of  living 
in  excess  of  the  maxinunu  limit  defined  in  these 
pages  ren<lcrs  the  overwhelming  majority  of  those 
who  adopt  it  less  able  and  less  willing  to  make  sacrifices 
for  the  public  gowl,  whether  on  the  field  of  battle,  in 
public  life,  or  through  any  other  form  of  social  service. 
It  makes  great  achievements  in  art,  .scienc-e,  or  litera- 
ture morally  impossible,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 
reduces  to  a  minimum  the  power  to  abstain,  to  endure, 
to  wait  patiently  for  large  results.  Nor  is  this  all. 
For  every  person  who  lives  according  to  this  pernicious 
.standard,  there  are  thousands  who  are  unable  to  do 
.so,  yet  who  a  'opt  it  as  their  ideal  and  strive  to  imitate 
it  so  far  as  they  are  able.  Hence  these,  too,  suffer 
immeasurable  hurt  in  their  capacity  for  self-.sacrifice, 
generosity,  and  disinterested  social  .service.  All  the 
le.ssons  of  history  point  unhesitatingly  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  social  no  less  than  individual  welfare,  is  best 
promoted  by  moderate  living.  Colonel  Roosevelt 
stated  this  truth  in  terms  that  ouglit  to  be  com- 
mitted to  memory  and  constantly  pondered  by  every 
one  of  his  countrj-men:  "In  the  last  analysis  a  healthy 
state  can  exist  only  when  the  men  and  women  who  make 
it  lead  clean,  vigorous,  healthy  lives;  when  the  children 


214  The  Ciiircii  and  SoriAi.isM 

are  so  trained  tliat  tlicy  sliall  endeavor,  not  to  sliirk 
difficulties,  hut  to  overcome  tl.eni,  not  to  seek  ease, 
but  to  know  how  to  wrest  triumph  from  toil  and  risk. 
The  man  must  he  plad  to  do  a  man's  A\ork.  to  dare 
and  endure,  and  to  lahor;  to  keep  himself,  and  to  keep 
those  dependent  upon  Inm.  The  woman  must  he  the 
housewife,  the  l!el[)meet  of  the  liomemaker,  the  wise 
and  fearless  mother  of  many  children  "  ("The  Strenuous 
Life,",  p.  5).  In  the  opinion  of  the  writer,  there  are 
five  hundre<l  chances  to  one  that  a  family  will  realize 
these  conditions  much  more  fully  helow  than  ahove 
the  $10.0()()  level. 

A  stock  objection  to  the  doctrine  here  defended  rests 
on  the  assertion  that  every  community  needs  some 
examples  of  life  on  a  scale  of  nuiterial  majmificence,  in 
ordor  to  prexcnt  the  dullinp  and  deadeninp  effect  of 
monotonous  mediocrity.  Precisely  why  all  the  real 
and  solid  elTects  of  var  ety  could  not  he  had  within  the 
limits  set  in  this  paper  is  not  easily  seen.  The  satis- 
faction and  the  ui)liftinf:  influence  that  are  derived  hy 
the  masses  from  the  contemplation  of  palatial  resi- 
dences, splendid  raiment  and  equipages,  and  the  other 
public  manifestations  of  excessive  ex]  enditure,  would  be 
vastly  overtopped  by  the  benefits  that  would  follow 
the  investment  of  this  money  in  decent  habitations 
for  the  poor,  schools,  hospitals,  parks,  play-grounds, 
art  galleries,  and  public  concerts.  There  would  also 
be  a  decrease  of  social  hatred,  envy,  and  discontent. 
At  any  rate  a  reduction  of  90  per  cent  in  the  number  of 
the  existing  instances  of  magnificent  living  would,  ow- 


False  and  True  Welfare  215 

ing  to  the  comparative  rarity  of  the  phenomenon, 
increase  the  impression  made  upon  the  minds  and 
imaginations  of  the  masses. 

The  argument  on  behalf  of  lavish  expenditures  for 
works  of  art  in  private  residences  is  likewise  of  little 
value.  The  assistance  and  encouragement  given 
to  artists  would  be  equally  great  if  these  purchases 
were  made  for  the  benefit  of  public  galleries. 

It  must  be  admitted  tliat  luxurious  living  benefits 
industry  in  so  far  as  it  prevents  an  excessive  accumula- 
tion of  caj)ital  and  increases  the  demand  for  the  pro- 
ducts of  capital  and  industry,  but  the  money  thus 
spent  would  be  doubly  beneficial  if  it  were  employed 
in  works  of  public  and  private  benevolence. 

No  direct  reference  has  been  made  in  the  i)rcsent 
paper  to  the  question  of  great  i)rivate  fortunes.  AVhile 
the.se  are  a  necessary  condition  of  excessive  standards  of 
living,  they  are  .sei)arable,  at  least  in  theory,  from  the 
latter,  and  j)resent  a  distinct  j>roblem.  The  sole 
object  of  these  pages  has  been  to  define  as  precisely  as 
possible  the  range  of  expenditure  which  is  most  com- 
patible with — which,  indeed,  may  be  called  normal 
for — Christian  living.  Describing  this  in  terms  of 
dollars  may,  at  first  sight,  seem  ridiculous.  Never- 
theless, those  who  admit  the  soundness  of  the  underlying 
principles  cannot  set  aside  the  estimate  with  a  wave  of 
the  hand.  Possibly  they  will  find  that  it  is  not  easily 
overthrown  by  concrete  argument.  Throughout  the 
article  the  writer  has  had  chiefly  in  mind  Catholics. 
For  tliey  too  are,  to  a  deplorable  extent,  under  the 


216  The  Church  and  Socialism 

delusion  that  valuable  life  consists  in  the  indefinite 
satisfaction  of  material  wants.  This  delusion  injures 
those  who  are  below  as  well  as  those  who  are  above  the 
reasonable  maximum.  The  former  are  discontented 
where  they  ought  to  be  well  satisfied,  and  envious  where 
they  ought  to  be  thankful  because  of  the  temptations 
that  they  have  escaped.  The  latter  frequently  see 
their  chiUlreu  grt)w  weak  in  faith  and  character,  while 
they  them.selves  become  worldly,  cold,  and  ungenerous. 
The  contributions  to  religion,  charity,  or  education  by 
Catholics  who  live  sumptuously,  by  all  Catholics, 
indeed,  who  exceed  the  bounds  of  simple  and  moderate 
living — arc,  gc?icrally  speaking,  utterly  inadequate  as 
compared  with  their  income.  Herein  consists  the 
inordinate  attachment  to  wealth  which  is  contrary  to 
the  Christian  j)rinciplc.  It  is  no  longer  that  ridiculous 
passion  for  gold  which  obsessed  the  misers  of  our 
nursery  tales;  it  is  simply  the  striving  for  and  indulgence 
in  excessive  amounts  of  material  satisfaction. 


IX 

BIRTH  CONTROL 
I 

At  the  forly-fourtli  annual  meeting  of  the  American 
PubHc  Health  Association,  held  in  Cincinnati,  October 
27,   1J)1C,   Dr.  S.  Adolphus  Knoi)f  read  a  paper  ad- 
vocating   deliberate    family    limitation    by    the   poor. 
The  Women's  (^ity  Club  of  New  York  has  endorsed 
the  practice  and  the  movement.     In  suspending  sen- 
tence for  burglary  in  the  case  of  a  mother  of  six  children 
who  has  a   tuberculous  husband.  Judge   Williiun   II. 
Wadhams,  of  New  York  (^ity,  denounced  the  law  which 
forbids  giving  information  on  methods  of  preventing 
motherhood.     He    maintained    that    women    in    the 
circumstances  of  the  one  before  him  for  sentence  should 
be  provided  with  this  species  of  "  knowledge."     A  New 
York  wonum  who  was  sentenced  to  thirty  days  in  jail 
for  violating  the  law  which  prohibits  the  spread  of  .such 
information   went   on   a   "hunger  strike"   and,   after 
eleven  days,  was  pardoned  by  the  Covernor  on  her 
promise  not  to  break  the  law  again.     While  she  was  in 
prison  a  large  ma.ss  meeting  of  protest  was  held,  at- 
tended mostly  by  women,  and  by  many  girls  of  high 
school  age.     "The  boxes  were  filled  with  richly  dres.sed 
jx-rsons,    many    of    whom    are    socially    prominent." 
The  sister  of  the  woman  in  jail  was  "wildly  cheered" 
by  the  audience  when  she  declared  her  intention  of 
continuing  to  break  the  law,  and  the  meeting  adopted 
resolutions  to  work  for  the  abolition  of  all  laws  such 

217 


218  The  Church  and  Socialism 

as  the  one  violated  by  tlie  imprisoned  woman.  The 
physicians  of  the  Ilealtli  Office  of  New  York  City 
admit  tliat  they  tell  the  ■women  who  come  under  their 
care,  sufTcring  from  tuberculosis  and  some  other  dis- 
eases, liow  to  avoid  prepnancy.  Evidently  they  do 
not  believe  that  the  use  of  such  devices  is  an  essential 
violation  of  the  moral  law,  and  they  contend  that 
they  are  not  transgressing  the  spirit  of  the  civil  law. 

The  instances  just  cited  arc  sufficient  to  indicate  the 
wide  and  varied  activity  of  the  agitators  in  this  move- 
ment. In  the  presence  of  such  open  propaganda. 
Catholics  can  no  longer  afford  to  remain  silent  and 
inactive.  The  policy  of  reticence  must,  so  far  as 
necessary,  be  modified.  If  it  is  continued,  if  we  persist 
in  ignoring  thi/;  insidious  movement,  our  own  j)eople 
will  in  considerable  numbers  be  among  its  victims. 
The  practices  of  marital  perversion  will  be  more  and 
more  generally  urged  upon  Catholics  of  the  laboring 
class  as  a  remedy  for  social  and  economic  ills.  Social 
workers  and  friendly  visitors  rei)resenting  secular 
charitable  organizations  will  be  particularly  zealous  in 
impressing  upon  indigent  mothers  the  necessity  of 
having  no  more  children.  This  indecent  meddling 
creates  a  new  duty  of  charity  for  our  social  workers. 
They  must  assist  th.e  poor,  not  only  along  the  well- 
recognized  lines,  but  in  this  new  and  rei)ulsive  field 
which  has  been  brought  into  existence  by  the  contra- 
ceptionists.  Our  Catholic  poor  who  have  come  under 
the  influence  of  these  pestiferous  persons  must  be  firmly 
and  clearly  told  that  these  unspeakable  perversities 


Birth  Control  "2 19 

are  deadly  sins,  violations  of  the  law  of  nature  and  of 
God.  No  condition  of  poverty  nor  any  other  set  of 
physical  evils  can  justify  the  perpetration  of  moral 
evil.     A  good  end  never  justifies  a  bad  means. 

Perhaps  the  most  pretentious  argument  yet  made  in 
favor  of  hirth  control  is  that  contained  in  the  ])ai)er, 
rofered  to  above,  which  was  read  by  Dr.  Knoj)f  before 
the  American  Public  Health  Association.  Inasmuch 
as  it  comes  from  a  medical  man,  and  was  given  a  place 
in  the  proceedings  of  an  important  society,  it  will  be 
accorded  considerable  authority.  In  tiie  following 
paragraphs  we  shall  examine  it  critically,  and  take 
therefrom  occasion  to  state  the  correct  and  Catholic 
position. 

II 

The  paper  defends  birth  control  on  grounds  of  public 
health,  economics,  and  ethics.  Let  us  first  deal  with 
his  contentions  under  tl\e  head  of  health. 

Dr.  Knopf:  Child  mortality  is  extremely  high  among 
th.e  large  families  of  the  ])Oor.  The  reasons  are:  the 
weakening  of  tlie  mother  through  frequent  pregnancies 
and  labor  in  factory  or  shop,  congestion  in  the  home, 
and  lack  of  suflficient  income  to  prevent  and  cure 
illness.  This  is  particularly  true  with  regard  to 
tuberculosis. 

This  statement  of  fact,  and  all  the  reasons  given 
but  one,  may  be  accepted  without  admitting  for  an 
instant  that  the  proper  remedy  is  smaller  families 
obtained  through  artificial  prevention  of  conception. 


220  The  Church  and  Socialism 

The  obvious,  the  rcasonaMc,  and  the  just  remedy  is  a 
living  wape  for  the  father;  that  is,  a  uapc  sufhcient  to 
enable  him  to  support  the  entire  family  in  reasonable 
comfort.  It  is  monstrous  and  cov  ardly  to  attenift  to 
put  upon  the  parents  the  responsibihty  for  a  condition 
«^•hich  is  plainly  due  to  social  injustice.  It  is  unjust 
and  imrcasonable  to  require  the  parents  to  jrive  up  tlieir 
ri^ht  to  a  normal  number  of  children,  uhile  the  em- 
ploying classes  and  society  continue  to  profit  by  the 
exploitation  of  undori)aid  labor.  r)esj)itc  the  eni|)hasis 
placed  by  the  doctor  on  tuberculosis,  it  offers  no  ex- 
ception to  the  foregoing  .sentences.  The  true  remedy  is 
more  income.  The  insinnntion  that  frequent  l)reg- 
nancies  are  in  themselves  harmful  to  the  average  woman 
is  simply  not  justified  by  experience.  Such  a  result 
sometimes  hai)pons  in  th.c  cn.NC  of  i)oor  moth.ers,  but  the 
true  cau.se  is  malnutrition  and  overwork,  not  the  mere 
number  of  pregnancies.  Here,  again,  the  genuine  and 
the  just  remedy  is  a  living  wage  for  the  father. 

Dr.  Knopf:  In  Holland,  where  artificial  birth  re- 
striction is  encouraged  by  public  authority,  it  is  said 
that  the  stature  of  the  people  has  increased  4  inches  in 
the  last  fifty  years. 

This  statement  is  "important  if  true."  As  a  man 
of  science.  Dr.  Knopf  ought  to  know  that  he  is  acting 
quite  unscientifically  and  uncritically  when  he  accepts 
this  remarkable  assertion  on  the  authoritj'  of  an 
unnamed  speaker  at  a  eugenics  congress.  If  he  were 
a  logician  he  would  realize  that,  even  though  the 
increase  in  height  had  taken  place,  it  might  properly 


Birth  Control  221 

be  ascribed  to  many  other  factors  than  the  practice  of 
birth  restriction.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  the  birth  rate 
of  Holland  during  the  last  sixty  years  has  varied  from 
37,7  to  29  per  thousand,  reaching  the  latter  figure  only 
in  the  year  1910.  This  average  rate  is  almost  as  high 
as  that  of  Germany,  and  exceeds  that  of  Belgium, 
France,  Norway,  Sweden,  Denmark,  the  United 
Kingdom,  and  Massachusetts  (Thompson:  "Poj)ula- 
tion:  A  Study  in  Malthusianism,  pp.  104-109"). 
Consequently  the  argument  from  Holland  must  be 
revised  somewhat  as  follows:  Possibly,  though  quite 
imi)robably,  the  people  of  Holland  have,  in  the  last 
fifty  years,  increased  their  stature  by  4  inclies;  if  this 
has  occurred  it  may  have  been  due  to  birth  restriction, 
which,  however,  has  not  been  greatly  practiced,  either 
extensively  or  intensively,  as  is  evident  from  the  fairly 
high  birth  rate  that  has  i)revailed  in  that  country 
.synchronously  \\'\\]i  the  remarkable  elongation  of  its 
inhabitants. 

Dr.  Knopf  draws  some  equally  authentic,  scientific, 
and  convincing  examples  and  proof  from  certain 
sections  of  the  j)eoplc  of  France  and  Australia.  P'ar 
be  it  from  us  to  suggest  that  the  shoemaker  should 
always  stick  to  his  last,  that  the  good  doctor  can  serve 
humanity  better  in  the  field  of  medical  i^ractice  than  in 
applied  sociology, 

III 

The  second  division  of  Dr.  Knopf's  paper  deals  with 
the  economic  and  sociological  aspects  of  birth  control. 


222  The  Church  and  Socialism 

V^e  consider  briefly  his  main  contentions  under  these 
heads. 

Dr.  Knopf:  The  economic  loss  caused  by  the  presence 
of  thousands  of  children,  mentally  and  physically 
crippled  for  life,  is  beyond  calculation. 

This  is  a  t>'])ical  examijle  of  the  loose  and  exaggerated 
statements  of  the  contraccptionists  when  they  touch 
the  question  of  heredity.  So  far  as  the  "menially 
crippled"  are  concerned,  birth  control  is  utterly  ir- 
relevant; for  the  persons  who  are  likely  to  transmit  this 
defect  will  not  generally  be  induced  to  adoj)t  the 
devices  of  contraception.  Willi  the  exce]  lion  of 
syi)hilis,  the  physical  defects  that  are  strictly  here- 
ditary are  relatively  unimportant  and  affect  an  in- 
significant nujiiber  of  persons.  The  transmission  of 
sj-jjhilis  can  and  should  be  i)rcvented  by  entire  ab- 
stention from  marital  intercourse.  The  majority  of 
the  babies  who  now  come  into  the  world  puny  and 
anaemic  would  not  be  thus  handicapped  if  their 
mothers  were  properly  nourished.  Here,  again,  the 
real  remedy,  the  normal  remedy,  is  a  larger  family 
income. 

Dr.  Knopf:  The  larger  the  family  of  the  poor,  the 
more  child  labor  and  family  disru};tion,  and  the  lower 
the  standards  of  life  and  morals  in  general. 

The  child  lal)or  to  which  the  doctor  refers  is  either  a 
good  thing  or  a  bad  thing  for  the  child.  In  the  former 
case,  there  is  nothing  to  deplore;  in  the  latter  case,  the 
laws  against  child  labor  are  at  fault,  not  the  size  of  the 
family.    As  regards  the  charge  that  the  integrity  and 


Birth  Control  228 

morals  of  the  family  decline  as  its  size  increases,  we 
take  the  liberty  of  making  a  flat  denial,  aid  we  ask  the 
Doctor  to  produce  his  evidence. 

"More  domestic  trouble  ocfurs  in  Chicago  families  with  one 
child  than  in  those  with  a  large  number  of  childn-n."  states 
the  monthly  report  of  the  non-support  cases  in  the  Domestic 
Relation  Court  of  Chicago.  Among  535  warrants  issued  for 
negligent  husbands.  147  were  sworn  out  by  women  with  one 
child.  118  by  mothers  of  two.  15  by  mothers  with  live  and  one 
each  by  women  with  from  nine  to  thirteen  children.' 

Dr.  Knopf:  Judicious  birth  control  does  not  mean 
race  suicide;  for  in  Holland  the  death  rate  declined 
faster  than  the  birth  rate  betAveen  1881  and  191^2. 

This  is  another  of  tho.se  superficial  and  un.scicntific 
inferences  which  arc  all  too  conmion  in  the  writings  of 
birth  control  advocates.     Dr.  Knopf  draws  a  general 
conclusion   from   the   stati.stics   of   three  cities  of  one 
country.     As    we    intimated    above,     he     would     be 
well  advised  if  he  kept  out  of  the  field  of  statistics. 
What  are  the  general  facts  about  the  relation  of  the 
birth  rate  to  the  death  rate?     If  we  divide  the  countries 
of  the  world  for  which  we  have  appropriate  statistics 
into  two  classes,  calling  those  with   a  birth  rate  of 
thirty  or  more  per  th.ousand  high  birth  rate  coimtries, 
and   those   falling   below   that   figure   low   birth   rate 
countries,  we  get  the  following  results :     In  tlie  nine  low 
birth  rate  countries,  including  Holland  but  excei)ting 
Denmark,  the  rate  of  increase  of  population  declined 
between  1880  and  1910.     At  the  former  date  the  aver- 
age rate  of  increase  of  these  nine  countries  was  U.'2 
per  cent  per  thousand;  in  1910  it  was  only  11.6  per 


224  The  Church  and  Socialism 

cent.  We  take  the  year  1880  as  a  starting  point 
because  most  of  the  countries  do  not  present  statistics 
for  an  earh'er  date,  and  tliose  that  do  ^ive  earlier  figures 
show  the  same  trend  for  the  forty-year  as  for  the 
thirty-year  period.  In  five  of  the  nine  high  birth  rate 
eountries,  the  rate  of  j)opulation  increase  was  higher 
in  1!)1()  than  in  1880.  Three  of  the  nine  give  figures 
only  from  1800,  l»ut  they  show  a  ri.se  in  the  rate  of 
increa.se  for  the  twenty  years  between  that  date  aiul 
1010.  The  last  of  the  nine,  Uruguay,  presents  statistics 
for  only  twenty  years,  but  they  indicate  a  decline  in 
the  rate  of  increase.  The  average  rate  of  increase 
of  all  nine  countries  in  1010  was  1M,3,  which  was  'i.l 
per  cent  higher  than  the  average  at  the  earlier  <'ates. 
In  the  low  birth  rate  countries,  therefore,  the  falling 
birth  rate  has  not  been  offset  by  the  falling  death  rate, 
and  the  present  rate  of  population  increase  is  lower 
than  it  is  in  the  high  birth  rate  countries.  Moreover, 
the  decline  in  the  death  rate  was  considerably  greater 
in  the  high  birth  rate  countries  than  in  the  low  birth 
rate  countries  between  1880  and  1 !)]().'  We  shall  not 
imitate  Dr.  Knof's  rea.soning  by  concluding  that  the 
greater  decrease  in  the  death  rate  of  these  countries 
was  caused  by  their  greater  birth  rate.  It  was  mainly 
due  to  the  fact  that  they  had  a  further  distance  to  go 
before  they  should  reach  the  point  at  which  the  rate 
of  reduction  necessarily  becomes  relatively  slow. 

•The  statistics  upon  which  our  computations  are  based  will 
be  found  in  Thompson's  "Population:  A  Study  of  Mallhusian- 
ism,"  pp.  104-109. 


Birth  Control  225 

Since  most  of  the  low  birth  rate  countries  have  now 
got  tl  eir  death  rate  down  rather  close  to  the  lowest 
practicable  limit,  future  reductions  of  it  will  be  both 
slow  and  slight.     On  th.e  oth.er  hand,  their  bnth  rate 
will  in  all  prol.ability  continue  to  dcchne  mdcfinitely. 
France  has  practiced  birth  control  much  longer  than 
any  other  country,  and  its  population  is  now  stationary. 
There  is  no  reason  to  expect  that  any  other  country 
xN-hich  adopts  the  practice  widely  and  generally  will 
check  it  in  time  to  escape  a  like  condition.     Indeed, 
there  are  solid,  positive  grounds  for  fearing  this  very 
outcome.     In  order  that  the  population  of  a  country 
should  make  some  increase,  those  couples  that  marry 
must  avera^e  about  four  children  each;  but  no  social 
class  that  adopts  the  theory  and  practice  of  contracep- 
tion shows  such  a  high  average;  consequently  a  station- 
ary or  declining  I )opulation  becomes  inevitable  as  soon  as 
the  cult  has  i>ccn  taken  up  by  all  the  important  social 
classes.     Once   the  laboring  and  farming  groups  be- 
come addicted  to  the  practice  in  this  country,  the  days 
of   increasing   population   will   be  ended,     ^^e   might 
agree  with  Dr.  Knopf  that  "judicious"  birth  control 
need  not  lead  to  race  suicide,  but  we  know  that  if  it  be- 
comes general  it  will  exceed  the  limits  of  the  "judicious." 


IV 


Dr  Knopf:  The  sufferings  of  frail  and  poverty- 
stricken  mothers  and  of  their  puny  and  ill-fed  babes 
have  convinced  me  that  thoughtless  procreation  is 
utterly  immoral. 


*2C  The  Cnuncn  and  Socialism 

The  doctor  identifies  immorality  with  pain.  Conduct 
that  prothiccs  i>leasiire,  or  lia[)piiie.ss,  is  pood;  conduct 
that  produces  pain  is  liad.  If  one  accepts  this  view, 
and  is  caj)aMe  of  logical  tliiiikinp,  one  must  look  upon 
duty,  heiievolcrice  and  symj)atliy  as  superstitions,  or 
at  least  as  having  no  value  excejjt  in  so  far  as  they  bring 
pleasure  to  oneself.  Pleasure  and  hai)piness  are  pood 
only  because  they  are  my  pleasure  ai:d  haj)i)iness. 
If  I  find  happiness  in  beinp  truthful,  honest  and  chaste, 
it  is  reasonable  that  I  should  j)ra(ticc  all  these  virtues; 
but  if  they  do  not  brinp  me  liapi)iness  I  am  a  fool  to 
trouble  myself  with  them.  Such  is  the  moral  code  of 
the  num  who  accepts  tlie  doctrine  that  immorality 
and  sufl'erinp  are  one. 

Needless  to  say,  Catholics  reject  this  pleasure-and- 
pain  standard  of  morality.  It  is  condenuicd  by  the 
Church,  and  it  is  contrary  to  the  voic-e  of  reason. 
Ripht  reason  tells  us  that  those  actions  are  morally 
pood  which  are  in  harmony  with  our  rational  nature, 
which  jiromote  the  perfection  of  human  nature,  both 
individual  and  social.  Therefore,  the  question  whether 
pleasure  and  pain  be  morally  good  or  morally  bad 
depends  upon  their  relation  to  rational  nature  and  the 
ends  of  rational  nature.  We  may  agree  with  Dr. 
Knopf  that  the  use  of  birth  control  devices  will  in  some 
cases  increase  pleasure  and  diminish  pain,  but  these 
practices  remain  bad  simply  because  they  are  contrary 
to  nature  and  nature's  purposes.  They  are  a  perver- 
sion of  nature,  since  they  use  the  generative  faculties 
in  such  a  way  as  to  prevent  the  natural  ends  of  the 


Birth  Control  227 

faculties  from  being  attained.  The  very  use  of  the 
faculty  is  made  an  abuse;  marital  intercourse  is  made 
an  acted  lie.  This  is  intrinsically,  essentially,  neces- 
sarily and  forever  wrong.  No  considerations  of 
pleasure  or  pain  or  any  other  form  of  mere  utility  can 
make  it  morally  right. 

We  are  well  aware  that  this  reasoning  will  not  be 
convincing  to  persons  who  believe  in  tlie  pleasure  and 
pain  theory  of  morality.  Such  persons,  if  they  are 
logical,  must  also  deny  the  immorality  of  infrequent 
acts  of  solitary  unchastity  or  solitary  drunkenness. 
These  cannot  be  shown  to  be  wrong  e\cej)t  on  the 
ground  that  they  are  perversions  of  nature.  To  per- 
sons who  believe  that  all  three  of  these  classes  of  actions 
are  morally  good  in  so  far  as  i)lcasurablc  we  can  only 
say,  in  the  words  of  Lijicoln,  "  Jf  that  is  the  sort  of  thing 
these  people  like,  why,  that  is  the  sort  of  thing  that  they 
like." 

For  Catholics  the  morality  of  artificial  devices  for 
preventing  conception  is  not  entirely  dei)endent  upon 
our  percei)tIon  of  their  unnatural  character.  They 
have  all  been  condemned  by  the  authoritative  decisions 
of  the  Church. 

Of  course  we  admit  that  the  sufTering  involved  in 
bearing  children  is  in  some  rare  cases  a  moral  evil. 
When  it  interferes  gravely  with  the  maintenance  of  a 
reasonable  degree  of  health,  and  w  hen  it  prevents  mem- 
bers of  the  family  from  having  access  to  those  other  goods 
which  are  essential  to  reasonable  and  virtuous  life,  it  is 
not  a  morally  good  thing.     The  question  is  sometimes 


228  The  Church  and  Socialism 

asked  whether  it  would  l)e  permissible  to  advo- 
cate "birth  control  by  self-control"  in  extreme  cases, 
as  when  insanity  or  feeble-mindedness  in  the  parents 
was  likely  to  be  transmitted  to  the  cliildren.  Perhai)S 
the  safest  answer  to  this  qncstion  is  to  cite  the  ai){)r()- 
priate  general  i)rincii)le  laid  down  by  the  moral  theo- 
logians. It  is  that  if  pra\e  injury,  such  as  loathsome 
disease,  will  follow  intercourse,  the  parties,  t)r  either 
of  them,  are  justified  in  refraining  from  intercourse. 
Our  oi)inion  is  that  the  same  course  is  justifie<i  v  hen  it 
is  reasonably  certain  tliat  the  ofTspring  will  be  feeble- 
minded, or  when  ad<iitional  children  will  mean  dire 
and  degrading  destitution;  for  these  evils  are  surely  of 
as  great  magnitude  as  those  forms  of  sickness  men- 
tioned by  the  moral  theologians.  But  it  must  be 
understofHl  that  the  rcme<ly  that  we  are  now  discussing 
is  abstinence  from  intcrcour.se,  not  the  perverted 
intercourse  advocated  by  the  birth  controlists.  The 
latter  practice  is  as  certainly  and  invariably  immoral 
as  murder. 

Dr.  Knoj>f:  Fear  of  a  large  family  prevents  in- 
numerable young  men  from  marrj'ing  early;  con- 
sequently they  become  diseased  through  irregular 
intercourse  and  afterwards  transfer  the  disease  to  their 
innocent  wives  and  children. 

This  is  pretty  far  fetched.  The  men  who  resort  to 
such  unchaste  relations  are  generally  well  acquainted 
with  the  artificial  devices  for  keeping  families  small. 
Moreover,  the  men  who  indulge  in  contracei)tive  prac- 
tices in  the  marriage  relation  have  few  moral  scruples 


Birth  Control  2-29 

af^ainst  commercialized  adultery,  and  have  peculiarly 
strong  temptations  in  t'lat  direction.  As  a  "moral" 
remedy  against  the  contraction  and  si)read  of  venereal 
disease,  instruction  in  birth  control  methods  seems  to 
be  preposterous  and  futile. 


Dr.  Knopf:  I  have  been  the  recipient  of  communica- 
tions from  many  leading  physicians,  divines,  political 
economists  and  sociologists,  all  agreeing  with  me  that 
judicious  birth  control,  under  the  highest  ethical 
medical  guidance,  is  a  national  necessity. 

The  doctor  then  submits  eighteen  or  twenty  names 
of  rather  prominent  persons  who  are  in  favor  of  birth 
control.  A  few  of  these  are  repeated  in  a  list  of  some 
fifty  names  appeiidc<l  to  an  "Endorsement  of  Birth 
Control,"  which  appeared  as  a  full  page  advertisement 
in  the  AVjr  Republic,  March  3,  1917.  About  half  of 
these  are  the  names  of  women.  The  majority  of  the 
women  might  be  classified  as  social  reformers.  The 
majority  of  the  men  whose  names  appear  are  either 
physicians,  college  profes.sors  or  clergymen.  Most  of 
the  physicians  and  professors  are  fairly  prominent, 
while  the  few  clergj'men  are  of  the  ultra-radical  and 
unorthodo.x  variety. 

What  is  the  significance  of  these  endorsements.' 
What  amount  of  weight  may  properly  be  attributed  to 
them.' 

In  the  first  place  we  note  that  it  would  be  very  easy 
to  bring  forward  a  much  larger  number  of  persons,  of 


230  The  Church  and  Socialism 

at  least  equal  prominence  as  physicians,  professors, 
clergj'nien  and  reformers  of  l)oth  sexes,  who  are  op- 
posed to  hirth  control.  The  balance  of  authority  in  all 
the  i)ertinent  fields  of  activity  is  prohahly  very  de- 
cidedly against  the  views  and  the  i)ro;L:ram  of  the 
contraceptionists.  Apainst  the  authority  of  the  phy- 
sicians whose  names  appear  in  Dr.  Knopf's  and  the 
AVjr  liepuhlic  lists  may  he  set  the  action  of  the  Medical 
Society  of  the  County  of  New  York.  By  a  large 
majority,  this  association,  a  few  months  ago,  refused  to 
endorse  an  amendment  to  the  Penal  Code  A\hich  would 
permit  physicians  to  prescribe  for  their  patients  methods 
of  preventing  concci)tion. 

The  main  significance  of  tl;c  "autliorities"  that  we 
are  discussing  is  to  show  how  far  wrong  well-meaning 
persons  can  go  when  they  arc  without  sound  moral 
principles,  and  when  they  look  at  only  one  side  of  a 
complex  social  question.  Almost  all  these  persons  are 
greatly  interested  in  the  welfare  of  the  weak  and  op- 
pressed, ^lany  of  them  are  actually  engaged  in  works 
for  the  relief  of  sufi'ering  and  the  betterment  of  social 
conditions.  Experience  and  observation  have  shown 
them  tliat  the  greatest  amount  of  physical  and  economic 
distress  is  to  be  found  in  the  large  families  of  the  poor. 
Therefore,  th.ey  hasten  to  conclude,  the  obvious  remedy 
is  small  families  among  the  poor,  and  the  obvious 
method  is  deliberate  prevention  of  conception. 

This  conclusion  ignores  entirely  a  consideration 
that  ought  to  be  primary;  that  is,  the  morality,  the 
right    and    WTong,    of    contraceptive    methods.     The 


Birth  Control  231 

average  Catholic  husband  or  wife  who  is  advised  or 
tempted  to  liave  recourse  to  these  practices  will  im- 
mediately ask  himself  whether  they  are  morally  la\\'ful. 
Instinctively  the  answer  will  come  that  they  are  not, 
for  they  are  against  nature.  They  are  not,  as  the 
birth  control  advocates  flippantly  tell  us,  merely  acts 
regulating  or  directing  nature;  they  are  perversions  of 
nature,  acts  which  thwart  the  course  of  nature,  which 
prevent  the  ends  of  nature  and  of  nature's  faculties 
from  being  attained.  Hence  these  birth  control  devices 
are  all  morally  wrong.  They  are  quite  as  immoral, 
and  for  the  .'^ame  reason,  as  suicide,  self-nmtilation, 
solitary  unchastity,  or  solitary  drunkenness.  This  is 
the  answer  that  the  Catholic  makes  to  the  recom- 
mendation that  the  burdens  of  a  large  family  be  avoided 
by  the  practice  of  contraception. 

Now  this  principle  that  the  perversion  and  thwarting 
of  nature  is  morally  wrong,  has  either  become  obscured 
in  the  minds  of  the  "authorities"  above  mentioned,  or 
has  been  deliberately  rejected  by  them  in  favor  of  a 
contrary  theory  of  morality.  I'robably  the  majority 
of  them  hold  that  there  is  no  such  thing  as  intrinsic 
right  and  wrong,  they  believe  that  ripht  and  wrong, 
good  and  bad,  are  only  names  for  the  socially  useful 
and  the  socially  harmful.  They  think  that  only  those 
actions  are  bad  which  are  injurious  to  society.  Believ- 
ing that  contraceptive  practices  are  beneficial  to  the 
community,  they  consequently  hold  such  practices 
to  be  morally  good. 

We  have  not  the  space  here  to  show  that  this  social- 


232  The  CiirRCH  and  Socialisn! 

utility  theory  of  morality  is  illo^'ical  atul  false.  We 
merely  point  out  that  the  i>ersoii  who  holds  this  theory, 
and  Aviio  is  capable  of  loj^ical  thinking,  will  find  tliat 
he  must  give  up  entirely  the  utility  doctrine  of  morality 
or  come  to  the  conclusion  that  not  social  hut  indi\idual 
welfare  and  happiness  is  the  rule  of  right  and  wrong. 
In  this  case  he  will  liave  to  maintain  that  any  action 
whatever,  which  nuikes  for  one's  happiness  or  pleasure 
is  morally  good,  no  matter  wliat  suffering  it  brings  to 
the  neighbor  or  to  society.  Probably  no  human  being 
has  ever  compl(>tcl\-  a(lo[)ted  or  acted  upon  this  luori- 
strous  principlf 

The  birth  c<^iitrol  "authorities *'  take  into  account 
fniIy  one,  and  that  the  superficial,  a.sjiect  of  the  situa- 
tion. They  see  clearly  that  in  thousands  of  poor 
families  a  smaller  number  of  children  \\ould  mean  a 
smaller  amount  of  physical  liardship.  \\  hat  they  do 
not  see,  or  see  with  suflicient  clearness,  is  that  if  the 
laboring  classes  were  to  adopt  the  practice  of  birth 
control  tliC  country  would  inevitably  witness  a  declining 
population. 

The  birth  control  advocates  hope  to  see  a  situation 
in  which  the  poorer  classes  would  deliberately  keep 
their  families  small  ^hile  the  comfortable  and  rich 
classes  would  have  fairly  large  families.  If  these 
birth  controlists  were  not  so  superficial,  if  tliey  A\ould 
take  the  trouble  to  consider  adequately  all  sides  of  the 
question,  they  would  realize  that  this  hope  is  vain.  It 
is  precisely  among  the  better-ofT  clasess  that  the 
practice  of  avoiding  large  families  is  most  prevalent. 


BiRTii  Control  ^38 

No  arguments  of  patrotism  or  social  welfare  will 
prevent  these  classes  from  continuing  their  selfish 
course;  for  the  man  and  woman  who  deliberately 
violate  some  of  the  strongest  instincts  and  dictates  of 
nature  for  the  sake  of  ease  and  j)leasure  will  he  deaf 
to  appeals  drawn  from  the  conmion  good.  They  are 
too  deei)ly  sunk  in  the  quagmire  of  egotism. 

The  average  number  of  children  per  family  among 
those  classes  that  now  practice  birth  control  is  not 
sufficient  to  produce  a  third  generation  that  will  be 
equal  in  numbers  to  the  present  generation.  For 
example,  any  one  hundred  couples  addicted  to  birth 
control  will  not  have  one  hundred  married  couples 
among  their  grandchildren.  The  studies  that  have 
been  made  of  birth  control  couj)lcs  all  show  that  they 
average  less  than  three  children  each,  whereas  an  aver- 
age of  between  three  and  four  children  per  family  is 
necessary  to  maintain  the  present  numbers  of  any 
group.  The  excess  above  two  children  is  recinired  on 
account  of  those  who  die  before  maturity,  those  who 
do  not  marrv',  an<l  tho.se  married  persons  who  have  no 
children.  Of  course  this  argument  assumes  that  the 
children  will  follow  the  deadly  example  set  by  the 
parents,  an  assumption  which  is  abundantly  verified 
by  experience. 

If  the  laboring  classes  should  adopt  birth  cniitrol, 
their  numl)ers  wouhl  inevitably  be  reduced  in  the  third 
generation,  just  as  in  the  case  of  the  comfortable 
classes  who  have  already  become  addicted  to  the  prac- 
tice.    Let  the  farming  classes  and   all   other  classes 


'281  TllK    ClIlRCH    AND   SCX^IAUSM 

hccoinc  birth  c-ontroli.sLs,  uiid  u  decline  in  the  country's 
population  (except  as  offset  by  immigration)  would 
l)ecome  as  certain  as  any  soc-ial  fact  that  has  l)ecn 
estahli.shed  by  experience  and  statistics. 

This  outcome  seems  never  to  be  frankly  face<i  by 
the  birth  control  "authorities."  They  prefer  to 
i^'nore  it.  hoping  that  a  sufficient  numl)er  of  couples 
will  sonle^vhc^e  be  fouiui  to  i)ro<luce  large  families  and 
prevent  a  decline  in  the  total  i)opulati<)n.  We  believe 
that  their  hoi)es  will  be  fulfille<l,  but  not  in  the  way 
that  they  expect.  Those  groups  iti  the  conununity 
which  will  continue  to  have  large  families  will  not  be 
the  comfortable  classes  or  any  other  classes  that  sub- 
scribe to  the  doctrine  of  birth  control.  They  will  be 
those  persons  who  reject  entirely  birth  control  on  the 
groujids  of  morality.  In  other  wonls,  they  will  be 
mainly  the  Catholic  element  of  the  population.  Thus 
the  fittest  will  survive;  that  is,  the  fittest  morally. 
This  will  be  a  good  thing  both  for  the  survivors  and 
for  the  nation,  even  though  it  is  not  at  all  the  outcome 
desired  by  the  birth  control  "authorities." 

Another  indication  of  the  one-sided  and  superficial 
view  taken  by  our  "authorities"  is  found  in  their  utter 
inability  to  perceive  the  disastrous  effects  of  birth  con- 
trol upon  character  and  efficiency.  Men  and  women 
who  deliberately  shirk  the  duties  of  child  bearing  and 
rearing  for  the  sake  of  ease  and  enjoyment  sooner  or 
later  become  incapable  of  the  highest  effort.  And  this 
effect  naturally  becomes  more  pronounced  in  the  suc- 
ceeding generations  that  grow  up  in  this  enervating 


Birth  Control  235 

atmosphere.  It  is  a  law  of  life  that  nothing  worth 
while  is  accomplished  without  struggle,  sacrifice,  and  a 
considerable  capacity  to  endure  the  things  that  are 
unpleasant  and  to  do  witliout  the  things  that  are 
pleasant.  In  the  great  majority  of  instances  the 
practice  of  avoiding  large  families  reduces  the  capacity 
to  endure  and  to  do  without  to  such  a  degree  that  the 
devotees  of  the  practice,  and  especially  their  children, 
are  woefully  handicapped  in  the  struggle  for  achieve- 
ment. They  hcconie  weak  of  heart,  flahhy  of  intellect, 
and  inconstant  of  purpose.  To  those  who  take  the 
trouble  to  study  birth  control  families,  this  condition 
is  as  clear  as  any  general  fact  of  social  experience. 
But  it  has  not  yet  penetrated  the  consciousness  of  the 
birth  control  "authorities." 


X 

WOMAN  SUFFRAGE 

In  two  years  the  voters  of  New  York  State  changed 
a  majority  of  190,000  against  woman  sufTrape  to  a 
majority  of  05,000  for  it.  No  sucli  reversal  of  senti- 
ment, or  victory  for  female  enfranchisement,  has 
occurred  before  in  the  I'nitod  States.  While  it  is  not 
within  the  j)nrj)Ose  of  this  article  to  attempt  an  e,\- 
planation  of  this  remarkahle  conversion  of  a  state's 
electorate,  it  is  worth  while  to  point  out  that  the 
majority  for  suffrage  in  the  Em[)ire  State  came  entirely 
from  the  cities  and  almost  entirely  from  the  city  of 
New  York.  At  the  same  election,  the  socialist  can- 
didate for  mayor  increased  the  vote  of  his  party  by 
some  115,000  ballots.  Undoubtedly  the  great  majority 
of  these  voters  were  moved  by  more  or  less  radical 
considerations,  by  discontent  with  the  existing  political 
and  economic  conditions,  and  by  a  strong  but  unde- 
fined hope  that  Mr.  Ilillquit  would  be  able  to  reduce 
the  cost  of  living  and  remove  other  economic  hard- 
ships. In  such  a  discontented  and  radical  mood  men 
would  be  quite  likely  to  support  woman  suffrage, 
especially  since  it  has  always  been  largely  identified 
with  radical  movements  in  politics  and  industry. 
Probably  the  greater  part  of  the  suflFrage  majority  in 
the  recent  New  York  election  was  provided  by  those 
who  voted  the  socialist  ticket. 

Nevertheless,  there  is  very  little  danger  that  radical 
movements  will  attract  the  majority  of  the  women 

2S6 


Woman  Suffrage  €37 

voters.  In  the  first  place,  no  such  outcome  is  visible 
in  states  wliere  uonien  already  exercise  tlie  franchise. 
In  the  second  place,  women  are,  on  the  whole,  more 
conservative  than  men,  more  fearful  of  sudden  and 
great  chan<:cs,  more  inclined  to  cling  to  the  existing 
order,  whether  of  the  family,  the  state,  or  industry. 
In  the  third  place,  the  extremist  leaders  in  the  suffrage 
movement  are  not  rej)resentative.  While  a  very  large 
proj)ortion  of  the  women  agitators  for  suffrage  have 
been  and  are  of  the  radical  type,  or  the  advanced 
feminist  type,  their  theories  and  performances  do  not 
reflect  the  ideas  and  temi>er  of  women  generally. 
Most  of  the  leaders  are  exceptional  rather  than  tj7)ical. 
Their  dissatisfaction  with  male  political  rule  and  their 
desire  tliat  women  should  share  the  business  of  govern- 
ment arise  mainly  from  facts  and  considerations  peculiar 
to  their  special  classes,  and  sometimes  to  their  i)ersonal 
conditions.  No  doubt  these  leaders  think  that  they 
represent  their  sex,  but  calm  observation  and  analysis 
seem  to  show  that  their  ideas  and  i)yscholog>'  are 
remote  from  t!ie  mental  habits  and  attitudes  of  the 
majority  of  women. 

What  are  the  proofs  of  this  assertion?  There  is  none 
that  amounts  to  a  demonstration.  Neither  is  there  any 
conclusive  argument  for  the  contrary  proposition.  All 
the  surface  indications — and  we  have  nothing  better  to 
go  by — show  that  the  majority  of  women  have  not 
asked  for,  indeed,  do  not  want  tlie  privilege  of  voting. 
By  far  the  greater  number  of  the  women  acquaintances 
of  any  of  us  are  either  opposed  or  indifferent  to  political 


238  The  CiiuRcn  an'd  Socialism 

enfranchisement.  In  fact,  the  suffragist  leaders  liave 
pretty  generally  rejected  j)roj)Osals  to  leave  tie  decision 
of  the  question  to  the  women  themselves.  They  have 
preferred  to  entrust  their  cause  to  the  men  rather  than 
to  the  members  of  their  own  sex  as  a  whole. 

Again,  the  position,  antecedents  and  opinions  of  the 
most  active  leaders  in  the  suffrage  movement  create  a 
strong  presumf)tion  in  favor  of  the  belief  that  their 
social  and  political  views  are  not  typically  feminine. 
For  the  most  part,  they  are  either  women  of  means, 
women  of  leisure,  women  in  the  i)rofessions,  or  women 
active  in  labor  unions.  Those  in  the  first  two  of  these 
categories  have  taken  up  suffrage  agitation  largely  by 
way  of  reaction  from  lives  of  cmi)tincss  and  aimlessness, 
and  with  the  desire  to  be  of  some  genuine  service  to 
their  sisters.  In  the  main,  they  are  responding  to 
essentially  the  same  motives  that  impel  other  women  of 
their  class  to  go  in  for  settlement  work  and  works  of 
philanthropy  generally.  Equally  with  the  latter  they 
are  exceptions  in  their  class.  Professional  women  in 
the  suffrage  movement,  particularly  teachers,  find 
therein  scope  for  the  exercise  of  their  active  and  com- 
petent minds.  They  are  in  an  exceptional  position 
to  see  the  great  influence  exerted  by  politics  and 
government  upon  education  and  industry.  They  come 
to  have  some  understanding  of  politics,  and  they  have 
the  desire  and  the  leisure  to  translate  that  understand- 
ing into  action.  While  their  motives  are  mainly  un- 
selfish, it  is  obvious  that  their  circumstances  and  mental 
processes  are  not  typical  of  their  sex.     The  trade- 


Woman  Suffrage  239 

union  women  have  a  very  practical  reason  for  tlieir 
activity  in  tlie  suffrage  movement,  for  they  see  the  in- 
dustrial abuses  and  evils  suffered  by  wage-earning 
women,  and  tl:ey  know  that  most  of  these  bad  condi- 
tions can  be  removed  by  legislation.  They  realize  that 
if  women  wage-earners  had  the  franchise  and  would  use 
it  intelligently,  the  industrial  position  of  the  latter  could 
be  imi)roved  promptly  and  considerably.  Nevertheless, 
it  is  fairly  certain  that  the  great  majority  of  women 
workers  do  not  grasp  in  any  vital  or  tenacious  way  the 
reasoning  or  the  convictions  of  the  officials  of  the  female 
trade  unions;  for  the  great  majority  are  unorganized 
even  industrially,  have  not  acquired  the  industrial  Op 
political  consciousness  of  the  leaders,  and  are  constantly 
hoi)ing  to  abandon  at  an  early  date  the  j)osition  of 
wage-earner  for  t';at  of  housewife.  Moreover,  the 
whole  numijcr  of  female  wage-earners  constitutes  only 
a  small  minority  of  tlie  women  of  the  United  States. 

The  situation  seems  to  be  this:  While  the  leadership 
of  the  suffrage  movement  in  New  York  has  been  con- 
siderably tainted  a\  ith  excessive  radicalism  of  various 
kinds,  it  does  not  adequately  represent  the  great 
majority  of  the  women,  even  on  the  question  of  the 
desirability  of  suffrage;  therefore  the  antecedents  of 
female  enfranchisement  provide  no  solid  reason  for 
thinking  that  th.e  masses  of  \\  omen  voters  will  be  found 
on  the  side  of  radical  movements  or  measures. 

In  these  circumstances,  the  proportion  of  the  woman 
vote  in  New  York  that  will  support  advanced  feminist 
proposals,  such  as  easier  divorce,  legitimizing  birth- 


240  The  Church  and  Socialism 

control  propaganda,  the  legal  right  to  bear  children 
oiitsitle  of  niatrinioiiy,  etc.,  will  (Icj^end  entirely  upon 
the  extent  to  which  the  diflerent  classes  of  women 
accept  their  new  political  responsihilities.  If  only 
those  women  who  believe  in  socialism,  feminism,  and 
other  forms  of  radicalism  exercise  the  franchise,  such 
movements  will  be  strengthened  politically.  If  the 
women  who  do  not  accei)t  these  radical  theories  take 
the  trouble  to  vote,  the  political  influence  of  the 
feminist  group  will  be  nnich  more  than  counterbalanced. 
Indeed,  if  the  women  of  each  social  and  economic  class 
of  the  community  go  to  the  polls  in  as  large  proportions 
as  the  men  of  the  same  class,  unsound  social  proposals 
will  j)robably  receive  a  smaller  share  of  the  vote  than 
they  do  today;  for  in  every  class  the  proportion  of 
women  extremists  is  smaller  than  that  of  men.  Recent 
news  despatches  represent  King  Albert  of  Belgium  as 
affirming  his  belief  in  woman  suffrage  as  inevitable  after 
the  war.  It  is  not  generally  known,  perha{)s,  that 
before  the  war  the  socialists  of  that  country  were 
mostly  opposed  to  this  policy;  for  they  were  afraid  that 
their  cause  would  suffer  through  the  preponderance  of 
conservative  voters  among  the  women.  What  the 
socialists  feared  in  Belgium,  the  friends  of  sound  social 
policies  may  await  calmly  in  the  State  of  New  York. 
Even  in  this  land  of  greater  freedom  and  opportunity 
for  women,  they  are  less  attracted  than  men  by  revolu- 
tionary social  doctrines,  and  our  Catliolic  women, 
naturally,  are  the  most  conservative  of  all. 

It  is  of  the  greatest  and  most  urgent  importance  that 


Woman  Suffrage  241 

the  Catholic  women  of  New  York,  and  all  other 
women  who  believe  in  the  integrity  of  the  family  and 
in  the  maintenance  of  Christian  social  principles  and 
institutions,  should  realize  inmiediately  that  political 
enfranchisement  has  put  upon  them  a  very  serious 
responsibility.  The  power  to  vote  is  not  a  personal 
prerogative  that  one  is  morally  free  to  use  or  not  to 
use.  It  is  a  personal  privilege  granted  for  a  social 
purpose,  and  carrj'ing  with  it  social  and  civic  obliga- 
tions. If  the  women  who  cling  to  right  social  doctrines 
fail  to  vote  in  as  large  proportions  as  the  feminine 
adherents  of  extreme  theories,  they  ^\  ill  l)e  as  certainly 
and  as  definitely  to  blame  for  the  resulting  injury 
to  the  home  and  to  right  social  order  as  though  tliey 
had  openly  preached  the  doctrines  they  abhor.  In 
order  that  they  may  exercise  the  franchise  intelli- 
gently, in  order  that  tl-.ey  may  be  able  to  distinguish 
between  good  and  bad  political  j)olicies,  they  will 
obviously  be  compelled  to  study  consistently  social 
and  political  questions  and  conditions.  Undoubtedly 
this  will  be  the  most  irksome  feature  of  their  respon- 
sibilities as  voting  citizens. 

Many  Catholic  and  other  conservative  women  of 
New  York  State  will  accept  this  conclusion  with  great 
reluctance.  They  will  insist  that  they  had  not  desired 
this  privilege  and  this  responsibility.  They  will 
complain  that  the  men  voters  acted  unfairly  by  impos- 
ing the  franchise  upon  them  in  order  to  please  a  small 
but  active  minority  of  the  women  of  the  state.  Un- 
doubtedly it  would  have  been  better  to  permit  the 


242  The  Church  and  Socialism 

majority  of  the  women  themselves  to  decide  the  ques- 
tion of  suffrage.  The  refusal  of  the  leaders  of  the 
movement  to  seek  or  consent  to  such  a  decision, 
showed  not  only  a  lack  of  faith  in  the  political  sense  of 
their  sisters,  but  a  want  of  regard  for  the  methods  and 
principles  of  democracy.  Had  the  extension  of  the 
franchise  been  left  to  the  determination  of  the  masses  of 
the  women,  they  probably  would  have  refused  the 
privilege  at  first;  but  the  field  would  then  have  been 
open  for  a  direct  campaign  of  political  education 
among  those  who  most  needed  it,  the  women  them- 
selves. By  the  time  that  the  majority  of  them  were 
convinced  and  ready  to  accept  the  franchise,  they 
would  have  a  much  better  conception  of  its  importance, 
power  and  responsibility  than  they  have  as  the  result 
of  an  appeal  which  was  primarily  addressed  to  males. 

All  these  complaints  and  all  these  speculations  on 
"what  might  have  been"  are  now  worse  than  futile. 
The  outstanding  fact  is  that  the  women  of  New  York 
have  been  empowered  to  vote;  that  if  they  wish  to  be 
good  citizens  they  must  inform  themselves  concerning 
public  and  political  questions  and  conditions,  and  that 
the  Catholic  women  may  not  conscientiously  shirk 
their  new  obligations. 

Some  twenty-five  years  ago  the  writer  defended  in 
a  classroom  essay  the  proposition  tl:at  female  suffrage 
had  become  reasonable  and  expedient,  on  account  of 
the  large  number  of  women  that  are  otl;erwise  occupied 
than  in  the  home.  Time  and  observation  have  strength- 
ened him  in   that  opinion.     That  woman's  true  and 


Woman  Suffrage  243 

permanent  place  is  the  home,  and  that  her  duties  as 
homemaker  are  so  engrossing  and  so  remote  from 
political  problems  as  to  make  her  much  less  apt  than 
man  to  acquire  political  knowledge  or  capacity  are 
propositions  that  will  always  be  true  of  the  wives, 
mothers  and  daughters  whose  time  is  devoted  to  domes- 
tic occupations.  With  a  reasonable  amount  of  effort 
they  can,  however,  learn  enough  about  the  more 
concrete  political  and  civic  matters  to  provide  the  basis 
for  a  fairly  intelligent  exercise  of  the  voting  privilege. 
They  can  make  themselves  fairly  well  acquainted  with 
those  public  problems,  situations  and  projects  which 
affect  the  home  and  morals.  And  their  instincts  in 
this  province  are  sounder  than  the  instincts  of  men. 
As  regards  the  more  abstract  political  issues,  they  will 
probably  vote  in  the  same  way  as  their  husbands, 
fathers  and  brothers,  thus  doing  neither  more  good  nor 
harm  to  the  public  weal  than  the  latter. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  millions  of  women  who  have 
gone,  for  longer  or  shorter  periods,  into  professional, 
industrial  or  commercial  occupations  will  have  the 
same  interest  in  the  politics  of  domestic  and  moral 
questions  as  their  sisters  of  the  household,  and  in 
addition  will  be  immediately  and  vitally  concerned 
with  those  political  proposals  which  affect  their  own 
gainful  occupations.  The  conditions  surrounding  and 
affecting  women  who  work  for  wages  are  far  from 
satisfactory.  For  the  majority,  neither  the  remunera- 
tion, the  hours  of  labor  nor  the  sanitation  and  safety 
are  up  to  the  standard  required  by  decency,  humanity 


€44  The  CnrRni  and  Socialism 

and  Christianity.  Most  of  the  measures  nccessarj' 
to  remove  these  abuses  will  have  to  con^e  throuph 
lepislation.  Owinj;  to  their  intimate  and  practical 
connection  with  these  problems,  wage-earning  women 
are  in  a  position  to  understand  most  of  them,  quite  as 
well  as  men,  and  some  of  them  very  much  better. 
After  all,  one  of  the  fundamental  justifications  of 
democracy  is  the  fact  that  the  members  of  every  social 
or  intlustrial  cbiss  understand  certain  of  their  own 
needs  better  than  do  the  members  of  any  other  class. 
The  principle  is  strikingly  true  of  wage-earning  women. 
While  writing  the  concluding  j)aragraphs  of  this 
paper,  I  received  a  letter  from  a  talented  and  active 
Catholic  woman  who  declares  that  educated  Catholic 
women  are  doing  splendid  work  in  purely  charitxible 
fields,  but  have  taken  little  or  no  interest  in  civic  and 
social  reforms.  This  thought  reinforces  and  makes 
more  concrete  what  I  wanted  to  say  by  way  of  con- 
clusion. I  have  already  pointed  out  the  responsibility 
that  rests  upon  the  Catholic  women  of  New  York 
State  to  use  their  votes  against  socialism,  feminism, 
and  all  other  forms  of  extreme  radicalism.  But  if 
their  political  interest  and  activity  do  not  go  beyond 
this  purely  negative  policy  they  ^\^ll  prove  themselves 
no  better  citizens,  and,  from  the  vie^\"point  of  civic 
opportunity,  no  better  Catholics  than  their  corelig- 
ionists of  the  male  sex.  It  is  unfortunately  still  a  com- 
monj)lace  that  the  majority  of  our  Catholic  men  have 
restricted  their  beneficent  activity  in  civic  and  social 
movements  to  the  task  of  combating  WTong  views  and 


Woman  Suffrage  245 

measures.  In  the  main  they  have  done  little  or  noth- 
ing for  constructive  reforms.  The  Catholic  women  of 
New  York  State  have  a  sj)lcndicl  oi)j)ortunity  to  put 
the  men  to  shame.  May  they  realize  this  opportunity 
by  taking  the  trouble  to  find  out  the  social,  civic  and 
industrial  evils  that  ought  to  be  removed,  and  to  sup- 
port and  vote  for  positive  measures  of  betterment. 
Once  they  seriously  atlopt  this  resolution,  they  will 
find  the  practical  ways  and  means  ready  at  hand. 


XI 
SOCIAL  SERVICE  AS  A  PROFESSION 

It  is  only  those  who  are  profoundly  ignorant  of  the 
needs  an<J  deficiencies  of  Catholic  cl  arities  who  still 
think  that  all  the  work  can  he  done  hy  volunteers. 
There  is  no  intention  here  of  belittling  or  under- 
estimating the  volume  or  the  quality  of  service  ren- 
dered by  those  noble  Catholic  men  and  women  who 
have  given  and  are  giving  their  time,  energies,  and 
talents  gratuitiously  to  the  relief  of  the  manifold  forms 
of  distress  which  characterize  modern  life.  Neverthe- 
less, the  persons  who  have  had  most  experience,  and 
who  are  most  efficient  in  these  gratuitous  activities 
are  the  first  to  realize  and  confess  that  voliuiteer 
effort  is  subject  to  three  insuperable  obstacles;  it  is 
Inadequate,  owing  to  the  lack  of  a  suflPicient  number  of 
workers;  it  is  uncertain  because  a  considerable  projjor- 
tion  of  the  workers  cannot  be  relied  upon  to  i)erform 
their  allotted  tasks  regularly,  at  the  appointed  time, 
and  in  a  systematic  way;  and  it  is  relatively  inefficient 
because  most  of  the  volunteers  are  without  adequate 
training. 

The  need  of  trained  workers  who  will  give  all  their 
time  to  charity  and  social  service  is,  therefore,  primary, 
fundamental,  and  exigent.  We  need  a  much  greater 
supply  tl  an  we  laveof  j  ersons  who  adopt  social  service 
as  a  profession,  and  who  get  from  it  their  living.  Oc- 
casionally the  objection  is  raised  that  the  employment 
of  salaried  and  professional  workers  is  a  perversion,  a 
degradation,  of  the  blessed  function  of  charity.  Giving 
one's  time  and  energy  in  the  service  of  the  poor  ought 

246 


Social  Service  as  a  Profession  247 

to  be  as  gratuitous  as  giving  one's  money  to  relieve  their 
material  needs.  Very  true;  but  the  vital  question  is, 
can  a  sufficient  amount  of  gratuitous  and  competent 
service  be  obtained?  And  the  answer  of  abundant 
experience  is  in  the  negative.  Therefore,  we  must 
either  have  paid  and  professional  service  or  carry  on  our 
charities  inadequately  and  to  some  extent  injuriously. 
Between  these  two  alternatives  there  should  be  no 
hesitation   in  choosing  the  former. 

Moreover,  it  is  difficult  to  appreciate  the  logic  of 
those  who  find,  or  affect  to  find,  in  the  services  of  the 
paid  worker  something  unworthy  and  even  mercenary. 
It  is  assumed  that  the  paid  worker  is  restricted  to  a 
single  motive.  But  the  fact  that  one's  occupation  or 
vocation  is  also  one's  source  of  livelihood,  does  not  shut 
out  the  higher  motives  of  action.  The  salaried  worker 
can  still  see  in  the  poor,  the  distressed  and  the  helpless 
God's  unfortunate  and  needy  children,  can  still  feel 
that  in  serving  them  he  is  .serving  Christ,  can  still 
sanctify  all  his  charitable  duties  by  the  motive  of  super- 
natural love.  Even  those  who  serve  the  altar  live  by 
the  altar,  and  no  one  thinks  of  calling  them  mercenary 
because  of  that  circumstance.  Nay,  even  the  members 
of  religious  orders  who  observe  the  vow  of  poverty  and 
whose  time  is  devoted  to  the  care  of  the  helpless,  say, 
in  an  orphan  asylum,  obtain  their  living  through  this 
service.  Assuredly  the  degree  of  unselfish  and  super- 
natural love  that  is  to  be  expected  and  that  is  obtained 
from  the  members  of  the  religious  community  is  greater 
than  that  of  which  the  paid  worker  is  ordinarily  capable; 
but  this  circumstance  does  not  justify  the  assumption 


248  The  Church  and  Socialism 

that  the  higher  motive  must  be  utterly  wanting  in  the 
paid  worker.  The  fact  that  it  is  combined  with  and 
qualified  by  the  motive  of  getting  a  secular  livelihood 
does  not  prove  that  it  is  non-existent.  Obviously 
the  paid  worker  would  be  able  to  cherish  the  higher  and 
supernatural  motives  to  a  greater  degree  if  he  were  to 
give  his  services  gratuitously,  but  practically  none  of 
those  who  adopt  social  service  as  a  profession  have  the 
financial  ability  to  follow  this  course,  any  more  than 
have  the  members  of  religious  orders.  On  the  other 
hand,  those  persons  who  have  the  means  of  independent 
maintenance  do  not  in  considerable  numbers  adopt  the 
profession  of  social  service. 

The  paid  charitable  worker  is  engaged  upon  tasks 
that  are  peculiarly  helpful  to  his  fellows,  and  he  has 
the  constant  incentive  to  perform  them  from  the  highest 
of  all  motives,  supernatural  love  of  God.  Few  secular 
careers  afford  as  much  opportunity  for  human  service, 
and  none  presents  duties  that  are  more  varied,  funda- 
mental, or  interesting.  The  profession  of  social  service 
ought  to  be  very  attractive  to  generous-minded  Catholic 
young  women,  particularly  to  those  who  have  obtained 
or  are  in  the  course  of  obtaining  a  college  education. 
While  the  teacher  and  the  nurse  are  peculiarly  effective 
benefactors  of  mankind,  neither  of  them  is  given  as 
wide  and  as  diversified  opportimities  for  service  as  the 
social  worker.  The  latter  deals  not  merely  with  a 
single  subject,  such  as  the  formation  of  the  expanding 
intellect  and  will,  or  the  recovery  of  health,  but  with 
the  manifold  forms  of  distress,  with  its  various  social 
and  individual  causes,  with  the  ways  and  rheans  of 


Social  Service  as  a  Profession  249 

moral  and  economic  rehabilitation  of  individuals  and 
families,  and  with  a  great  number  of  social  problems 
and  remedies.     Says  Dr.  E.  T.  Devine: 

"This  calling,  from  the  very  nature  of  the  work  to 
be  done  in  it  and  from  the  character  of  its  leaders, 
makes  an  extraordinary  appeal  to  the  missionary  spirit 
of  the  young  men  and  women  in  and  out  of  the  uni- 
versities who  have  seen  the  vision  of  a  new  social  order 
in  which  poverty,  crime  and  disease,  if  not  wholly 
abolished,  will  certainly  be  vastly  diminished,  and  will 
not  exist,  at  any  rate,  as  a  result  of  social  neglect,  as 
the  result  of  bad  traditions  which  enlightenment  can 
end,  or  of  obsolete  institutions  which  the  law  can 
change." 

While  we  may  regard  this  "vision"  as  rather  highly 
colored  and  remote,  we  cannot  deny  that  something 
approaching  it  is  sooner  or  later  cherished  by  every 
thoughtful  social  worker.  For  the  latter  does  cometo 
realize  that  the  problem  of  relieving  distress  need  not 
always  be  as  great  as  it  is  today,  and  that  very  much 
of  the  misery  of  our  time  can  be  abolished.  The  well 
equipped  social  worker  has  not  only  the  satisfaction 
that  comes  to  every  person  who  alleviates  human 
suffering,  but  the  consciousness  of  attempting  to  make 
some  contribution  toward  the  abolition  of  the  removable 
causes  of  misery.  He  can  feel  that  he  is  doing  God's 
work  in  a  larger  and  farther-reaching  way  than  is 
open  to  the  great  majority  of  persons  outside  the 
religious  life. 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  field  of  opportunity 
for  trained  workers  in  Catholic  charities  is  very  small 
since  the  majority  of  these  cannot,  or  at  any  rate  do 


250  The  CiiuRcn  axd  Socialism 

not,  emplo}'  salaried  workers.  To  this  objection  there 
are  two  ansveis:  first,  that  if  tie  supply  of  traired 
Catholic  workers  were  greater  their  usefulness  and 
indispensableness  could  be  more  efTectively  brought 
home  to  tliose  organizat  ons  tliat  have  not  yet  come  to 
realize  the  necessity  of  expert  service.  In  the  second 
place,  it  is  not  necessary  that  the  Catholic  trained 
workers  should  all  be  in  the  service  of  Catholic  organi- 
zations. The  majority  of  our  Catholic  teachers  are 
not  in  Catholic  schools,  nor  do  our  Catholic  nurses 
take  care  of  only  Catholic  patients.  In  several  of  the 
largest  cities  fully  one  half  of  the  relief  work  of  the 
secular  organizations  is  done  among  Catholic  families. 
The  desirability  of  Catl.olic  workers  to  administer  aid 
to  and  visit  these  families  is  obvious.  And  it  is  only 
exceptionally  that  secular  organizations  would  refuse 
to  employ  a  trained  worker  because  she  was  a  Catholic. 
Indeed,  the  difficulty  is  more  frequently  in  finding  the 
qualified  Catholic  worker  than  in  finding  the  position 
for  such  a  worker.  Recently  we  were  asked  by  a  pastor 
in  a  manufacturing  town  to  recommend  a  Catholic 
young  man  qualified  to  take  charge  of  the  welfare 
work  in  a  large  factory.  The  manufacturing  company 
had  given  the  pastor  full  authority  to  select  the  person, 
and  was  ready  to  pay  a  liberal  salarj'.  We  were 
unable  to  find  anyone,  and  the  position  has  pre- 
sumably gone  to  a  non-Catholic.  At  about  the  same 
time  we  were  asked  to  recommend  a  Catholic  woman 
to  take  charge  of  the  organized  charity  work  in  a  large 
city.    Here,  too,  our   quest    was    unsuccessful.    The 


Social  SER\^CE  as  a  Profession  '251 

Catholic  workers  that  we  happen  to  know  in  secular 
charities  assure  us  that  there  is  plenty  of  opportunity 
for  Catholics  who  are  really  qualified. 

Some  idea  of  the  size  of  the  field  of  social  service 
may  be  obtained  from  a  consideration  of  the  fact  that 
in  1915  there  were  more  than  4,000  workers  employed 
by  the  unofiicial  and  private  social-service  organiza- 
tions of  New  York  City.  This  estimate  leaves  out  of 
account  not  only  the  social  workers  in  public  service, 
but  all  those  in  religious  institutions,  Catholic  and  non- 
Catholic.  The  workers  were  engaged  in  a  great  variety 
of  activities: 

Institutions  for  children;  institutions  for  the  aged; 
working  girls'  boarding  houses;  homes  for  immigrants; 
other  institutions  for  temporary  relief;  fresh  air  and 
convalescent  homes;  institutions  for  the  defective; 
correctional  institutions;  settlements  and  clubs;  educa- 
tional agencies;  relief  and  rehabilitation  societies; 
agencies  for  immigrants;  day  nurseries  and  kinder- 
gartens; other  agencies  for  children;  correctional  agen- 
cies;  agencies  for  the  defective;  agencies  for  the  sick; 
employment  agencies;  recreational  agencies;  research 
and  educational  propaganda;  general  social  conditions; 
health;  industry;  education;  child  welfare;  correction; 
race  betterment;  recreation;  civic  affairs. 

Girls  in  our  Catholic  colleges  are  sometimes  advised 
that  if  they  wish  to  engage  in  social  work  they  should 
enter  a  religious  community.  With  quite  as  much 
reason,  and  quite  as  little,  they  should  be  urged  to  seek 
the  cloister  if  they  desire  to  become  school  teachers. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA   LIKRARY 

Los  Aiii;fU'. 
This  hook  is  DLL  on  the  l.isi  d.ilr  s(aiii|H'<i  Im'Io>«. 


fH^** 


yaftt 


[E"™t!L    JUIt.2  719» 


m  Ly-Series  444 


«ttt     ^^^1-H9^^  1 


ERSITY  of  CALIFOKIHa 

AT 


Jnivefsil,  of  Ca«tcyna  ^05  Angete^ 

i 

i  1 

1 II II 1 

ll,M 

ill 

II 

1  II 

li:    III 

lii 

L  005  241   080  0 

UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

|i|ni|fflnn||in||iniij|iiijn||ii)ii|ii  im  ii  ni 
AA    001  107  001    8 


